Human Shield?

Ferrous Id have to disagree with the notion that the US has an unbridled pure capitalist economy with no checks or boundaries. To have unbridled pure capitalism would mean there would be no FTC, no anit-trust laws, no taxes, no tariffs, no social security, no welfare, no fdic, etc... We were close to it in the late 1800s with such dynasties as the Rockerfellars doing business unchecked (the reality Karl Marx was writing about), but when later reforms changed that into a modified version of capitalism, or capitalism with a conscience (something some would say that Marx in his theoretical models did not anticipate hence the failure of the adoption of pure socialism but I still think this modified capitalism fits with his social evolution theories). Most Western countries function that way on a mix between socialism and capitalism. That mixing was how FDR defeated growing Communist groups in the Great Depression (well that and WWII).
 
The soapboxes always seem to break when I get on them:D which is why I try and avoid talking politics, though maybe its a sign that I should also go on a diet:rolleyes:
 
I second the thumbs-up on Fed's comments.

Pure "Randian" capitalism is as much an unreachable utopia as Marxism and will never be tried, though some may claim it is being followed.

Greedy, unprincipled, often megalomanic people will find a way to enrich themselves beyond what they have earned in any system. Some systems allow anyone a chance to behave thus, others provide the opportunity to a select few. Either way, many people get rooked. Does it really matter if the guy who rooked them is "self-made", a member of an "elite" family, or a government official with unbridled powers?

So far, it seems that something in the middle of the extremes of capitalism and socialism is the most workable solution. Some are weighted more towards capitalism (US), some are weighted more towards socialism (many W European countries). But in the overall spectrum, the countries doing the best seem to basically operate somewhere in the middle. I guess it's a kind of balance of opposing forces--nobody can get too powerful, but imbalances do occur.

--------

A few good comments relevant to the "oil question" appear in this thread:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=240681

I especially like this one from Esav:

The funny thing is, it's really an oil anti-war, with France, Germany, and Russia trying to hold us back to preserve their own contracts with the Iraqis.

As I recently pointed out in another forum, if the US wanted Iraqi oil, we'd get it -- the same way we've always gotten Saudi or Kuwaiti or Mexican or Venezuelan oil -- pay top dollar and don't ask the local regime any questions. :)

Either the weenies are incredibly ignorant or incredibly hypocritical. They know what has to happen, and they really, really don't mind. But they hope that if they pressure us now, we'll buy their cooperation with -- ta daa !! -- confirmation of their present Iraqi oil contracts!
 
AND THEN CHEW THEM OVER.
OIL IS THE MAIN ISSUE HERE.
the us and the allies moved against iraq in the first place because they had invaded kuwait, and they knew damn well if they let him get away with it saudi oil would be invaded next ect ect.
whoever controlled the arab oil fields can control the worlds economys.
what better terrorist weapon.
as i said before the fact that saddam wants to develop nuclear weapons is and rightly so also a major worry.
but i wonder if tomorrow a MAJOR CHEAP POWER SOURCE was discovered how willing the allied countrys would be to sacrifice our brave young soldiers lives, to aid the arabs.
i think about as well as they helped the slaughtered millions of rwanda ect. they would just sit and watch.
if the americans didant back saudi arabia kuwait and other arab governments, they would be toppled by there own people from within.they are dictatorships, not democrocies. having said all this
i do believe as i stated before the iraqi government needs to be replaced,with a pro western government.or what is the use of going to war with iraq, as 2-3 years later another saddam type will come along and we will be back in the same position again.
how can we prevent terrorists from obtaining nuclear weapons, look at the russian example an inventory of there nuclier stockpile of weapons was conducted and numerous nukes were unaccounted for, INCLUDEING OVER 30 SUITCASE OR BACKPACK SIZED TACTICAL NUKES OF THE 1-2 KILOTON YIELD IE NAGASAKI EFFECT.
where are they who knows.
so i totaly agree any country trying to achieve nuclier capability should be stopped by any and all means possable. we do not need any more nuclear capable countrys its dangerous enuff now.
BUT BE AWARE THIS STANCE WILL MORE THAN LIKELY CAUSE A THIRD WORLD WAR. korea for one does not like to be told what it can and cant do.
and the last korean war almost had to resort to nuclear weapons use.and was fought to a standstill where it remains today,simmering ready to boil over.
i wonder sometimes where the leaders of our nations keep there brains, tony blair standing up in parliment shouting korea is next after iraq,MADNESS.
BUSH U.S.A, shouts out on the world news, korea the evil empire will have to be dealt with. ???
if i was the president of korea i would be smart enuff to take my chance and storm across the border while the allies are all busy with sadam. GOD HELP US ALL WHAT A WORLD WE LIVE IN.
 
BUT BE AWARE THIS STANCE WILL MORE THAN LIKELY CAUSE A THIRD WORLD WAR.
Click to expand...

Too late, we are already there, or perhaps a Fourth World War if you count the cold war as the third. A conflict in between the developed and developing world has been coming on for some time. It was contained by the US and Soviet Union for many years; but,it has really picked up steam since the fall of the Soviet Union. Bill Clinton further fueled the fires by weakening the US position abroad, as Europe collapsed under its' own domestic challenges.

Wars do not start unless both sides perceived a chance to win. If the US, NATO, and the old Soviet Union were still here we wouldn't be talking about war. The US is the only one left with any real power and it has had to scamble to undo the damaged caused during the previous administration. It is not just Iraq and Korea, but also China and Tiwan, Pakistan and India, Israel and Palestine et. all, and any number of smaller Asian and African conflicts. South America is another developing hotbed that will soon explode. Columbia has practically split in half, the Argentinian and Brazilian economies have collapse, and Venezuela may soon errupt into a full civil war.

The UN for it's part was always little more than a cover for the real political armwrestling between the Nato Allies and the Soviet Block. As it sits now it is little more than a powerless debating society.

We can only hope that the Actions Bush is about to take can detonate the building conflict prematurely, before a real war can fully develop. In the aftermath we are going to have to work hard to create a new world balance which will probably be built around a Strong US block, a revitalized/rearmed and far more conservative European block (including Russia), and a strong Asian block centered on China.

I am convined, that if we merely sit here and do nothing for five years, we are going to wake up one day to see twenty countries tossing nuclear and biological weapons at one another. At least if we can get the power blocks back in place we can create a mechanism to give reason a better chance.

n2s
 
Thank you for your insight, not2sharp. How sharp you are.

I am very pleased former soviet bloc nations have joined us. People fresh from the yoke know what Saddam is.

There is a new Europe being formed. This is going to get interesting.

N2; why do you think the 'war' with emerging third world nations and the existing powers would be in combat? Why not merely economic?

munk
 
why do you think the 'war' with emerging third world nations and the existing powers would be in combat? Why not merely economic?
Click to expand...

You can never take wealth away from another man without resorting to force. It might be implied, such as the IRS sending you an invoice, or, actual like some mugger on a street corner, but it is the same underlying principle. The only way to make economic sanctions work is to back them with a solid military embargo.

Oil plays a part in this; but it is more like a headache, and we need to worry more about treating the brain tumor that is causing it. There are far bigger geo-political issues at play then terrorist and oil. I suspect that 10 years from now when someone finally manages to release a decent book on this period we will see that it was all really part of a bigger conflict between China and the West, with Iraq potrayed as little more than a Pawn and the terrorist as just expedient disposable tools.

n2s
 
China vs Us; yes. Terrorists as pawns of this?; no, not in the sense you mean. Reason; post 9-11 world redefines 'reality'. Terrorists independent cannons.

munk
 
I think I'll invent an engine that runs on oxygen and hydrogen before I die and solve all the world's problems.
 
We invent problems. I can't even accept a Khukuri without inventing a few...


If we were fed, and clothed, and had energy, what would we fight about?

munk
 
Originally posted by Bill Martino
I think I'll invent an engine that runs on oxygen and hydrogen before I die and solve all the world's problems.
Click to expand...


It would never get used because the Oil companies would supress it one way or another.:grumpy:
 
It would never get used because the Oil companies would supress it one way or another.
Click to expand...

They don't need to.

The energy produced by burning hydrogen and oxygen to make water is equal to the energy required to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water.

if the equipment employed has an efficiency of 100%

There aren't any hydrogen wells.

The energy/oil companies aren't going out of business--The hydrogen is essentially a convenient/clean way to store/use energy produced via combustion of something, nuclear reaction, photovoltaic/hydro-electric generation, etc.

Somehow, everybody seems to forget this part of the picture.
 
The 50 fools=50 soft tatgets!I just hope they find a bunch of their pals do do likewise.They could have a rally/meeting a ground zero.
 
Munk, my understanding of fuel cells is quite incomplete.

It's my impression that they are an efficient way to convert hydrogen and oxygen directly to electricity, instead of heat as combustion does. I think that part of the overall efficiency advantage arises because it's easier to convert electricity to useful work than it is to convert heat.

Still need the hydrogen though.

Some "reformer" technology exists that catalytically converts methane, or I think methanol, into hydrogen. Some people are trying to use this to feed fuel cells by generating hydrogen as needed. Maybe it has gotten advanced enough to use propane or ethanol as feed stocks.
But the feed stocks contain carbon, and that has to end up as carbon dioxide (or carbonic acid, or formaldehyde) when the hydrogen gets stripped away. Like partial burning where you get to save part (the hydrogen) to burn later, someplace else. Still a carbon load like combustion, but it can be separated in space and time. ( Kinda like electric power generation now. ) Plus I think many need elevated temperatures to operate, and the catalysts are easily poisoned by contaminants. So the feed-stocks must be highly refined (more than gasoline) which takes energy. And available in amounts comparable to petroleum. That's a lot of wood alcohol or methane( ...or a lot of swamp gas or...). The feed-stocks could also be produced from petroleum as part of the cracking and refining process.

I may not have it precisely correct, I haven't paid a lot of attention to this stuff.

The big picture doesn't look that different to me than converting wood to charcoal and shipping charcoal to the buring site because it is lighter. Or refining petroleum to more energy-rich, cleaner-burning gasoline for vehicle use. Using hydrogen as the energy storage medium may be more efficient, but you don't get the concentrated portable energy for free. It does allow the "dirty" energy storage to be done someplace other than where the "clean" energy release occurs though.
 
sorry to pull this away from oil, but I would agree with Fed's points on modified capitalism. I dumbed down my discussion so as not to get long winded. The pure capitalist model is still an underlying principle in practice even today. Sure, the'res unscrupulous price-fixing, taxation, etc. I was merely stating that with Capitalism in the US today, you still have the choice of brands and quality, which affect price. If you don't like the prices on food at Store X, you can still walk down to Store Y and see if you can get the product/service cheaper. Also, people can get into underselling the competition, etc.

As with all Utopian models, it takes humans to muck it up. all machines fail over time, machines being any construct (inncludinng society, govts, ideologies, etc) manufactured by man.

Keith
 
Actually Ferrous, unbridled Capitalism includes price fixing and monopolies- whatever the market will bear.

munk
 
I think that part of the overall efficiency advantage arises because it's easier to convert electricity to useful work than it is to convert heat.
Click to expand...

Why not simply start with water, separate the components with photovotaics, and burn the two gases to produce heat and water. The heat can be used to drive a heat engine; perhaps a steam engine or a turbine. The biggest problem I have with converting it into electrical energy is that electrical motors tend to be heavy, and sluggish. Whereas we can probably develop a steam or turbine to outperform conventional fossil fueled engines. We can do better. Why should we settle for a glorified golf cart?

n2s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top