I was thinking in generalities, not necessarily uranium ore but perhaps nuclear waste may one day be a raw material. I'm almost certain that the landfills of today will be a mined resource in the future.
TDD
But we don't know. "Too big to fail" was a fabulous spin campaign. I doubt Hollywood or a bigbox marketer could do better. But was it necessary? Things are a lot different than they were 80 years ago. Practically everything is held in electronic form. I don't think it would have been that difficult to throw the pirates and gamblers under the bus and hand over control of their systems to others.
As far as the "profits" go that seems to be something from make believe world. My understanding is that massive massive amounts of "toxic assets" from the pirate/gambler banks were purchased by the government outside the bailouts. So unless we want to devise a new meaning for profits there are none unless those banks purchase those assets back for more than we paid for them.
See above. And I don't agree. You say you want "free markets" and "personal responsibility just like Rush tells you but only sometimes?
Hard to ignore the huge contributions/envelopes/do nothing board seats for relatives/whatever that are delivered to both democrats and republicans just to insure the proper working of the "free market"?
quoted text -
But he was two faced as usual. GM should fail (agree) but "free market" pirate bankers getting bailed out isn't a problem.
I am too. But if we want a "free market" then lets do it. Not a selective one where pirate bankers get bailed out and we build free stores for walmart.
As far as being repetitive his "son" Hannity is twice as bad. He sounds like someone twanging a wound up rubber band.
The Daring Dufas wrote: ...
...
As commented on before elsewhere in the thread, it _could_ be now except for mostly political motivation that prevents it. (Carter edicted that NRC was not allowed to act on the GE license application for a reprocessing facility and killed the breeder project in his misguided "war on nuclear proliferation" wherein his confused thinking he confounded commercial nuclear power with weapons production.
That halted any chances of reprocessing in the US entirely although at current demand/cost, however, it wouldn't be economic anyway. AFAIK, those places that began recycling fuel have ceased owing to the economics not being favorable; it is afterall, while eminently doable, a complex process requiring all remote handling. Probably the most cost-effective first use would be as a secondary heat source if could get the activist anti's to allow transport more easily to central location(s); following that there are isotopes that are industrially and/or medically useful.
--
I don't recall what I heard of him that he was in favor of that either...
...
That ship sailed 100 years (or more) ago...
There's no putting the genie back in the bottle (and I doubt seriously any would like the consequences if could).
That the pendulum is a little strong to the central planning/gov't side now is probably so; I suspect as usual it will swing back the other way over the next few years.
There's so much gov't subsidy in various competitive markets in the rest of the world that if US were to unilaterally remove much of that the competitive balance would completely topple and if you're concerned about trade balance; that would be an eye-opener indeed (not on positive).
--
Yeah, those pesky toxic assets that were sure to be losers and cost the govt soooo much money. You mean like these:
The TARP program, initiated under Bush and continued under Obama lent out $750Bil to the financial firms in crisis. As of today, the amounts repaid, plus the market value of what the govt still owns in stock, warrants etc, leaves only $28bil at risk. That's simple, straightforward accounting, reported by the GAO, CBO, and Treasury. You're the one living in make believe world, contnuing to rant about failure, ignoring reports like the above, when overall the program has been a resounding success.
Compare that to Obama and the Dems economic stimulus that spent $850Bil, never to be repaid. That;s right, not a single penny. Where;s the personal responsibility in outright handouts?
It is personal responsibility when the stockholders of GM, FNMAE, etc lost all their investment. I would not want the govt to stand by in the middle of a true economic crisis and let a catastrophy occur any more than I would during a natural disaster. I don't need to see $350mil Americans suffer, just to further punish the minority who made serious mistakes.
And I'd say it's not contradictory to free markets when the govt only steps in when it's absolutely necessary, it's the only viable option left, and it occurs once every 80 years. Did you see any corporations or individuals say they were prepared to make those same investments the US govt did? What would you say to the suppliers of GM and Chrysler that in turn went bankrupt themselves, due to unpaid bills, while those two companies went through normal bankruptcy? What would you say to their employees? We should all feel good because we proved a point?
Well, if it's as you say, then truly it's the Democrats and specifically Obama who is corrupt. During the 2001 period, the Bush administration found plenty of people to prosecute for corporate crimes: Enron, Tyco, Wcom. Those executives are still sitting in jail. Obama and Holder can't find one, unless you count Bernie Maddoff, who wasn't even running or working for a publicly traded company. So either Obama is corrupt or else they don't believe they have a case that is winnable.
Are you sure? I seldom listen to him but someone I know walks around all day saying "Rush said..." and even he agrees that Rush is two faced because he never declared the bank bailout was wrong.
No, I specifically mentioned it was aside from that. They seem to hold the name "Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility".
You seem to love to confuse discussions. I am definitely not a liberal and I am certainly not a mindless Rush Limbagh "dittohead". I am being purely analytical in poking at all of the disingenuous stuff I see.
You made my point. If he wasn't two faced he would have strongly decried how it was wrong on lots of counts such as personal responsibility for actions and how it was contrary to free market principles.
So lets not fix it. Lets all be "dittoheads" and pretend we have a free market while selectively deciding which part is free...
That's what I'm saying--as far as I recall that was his position.
I did a quick search and there's so much junk out there I couldn't find quickly an actual transcript that was directly applicable quickly and certainly am not going to waste any more time over it.
I do know he did quite a lot of satirical stuff and that often gets taken out of context and quoted as the actual position instead of the satire instead.
I'll not claim anything specific on what actual comment was as I don't listen enough to have any clear recollections that are certain. In general though I don't necessarily agree on all his positions I think his position is generally pretty much consistent.
I just finished saying it _will_ get fixed to a certain extent (at least for some definition of "fixed" :) ). That's certainly not a statement there should be no changes or for additional regulation.
OTOH, the fact is that all the world's industrial economies are so strongly managed that for the US to unilaterally change grossly in some of these areas would be self-defeating in spades as the playing field rules would tilt markedly in favor of the other players.
Where the US needs restraint is mostly in the continued increase in additional oversight rules and regulations (EPA/OSHA/etc. come most easily to mind) that drive costs up and productivity down.
--
Because of the source "reliability" issue, to be competitive the operational PLUS capital costs of wind or solar must be less than just the operational costs of conventionally fueled power plants (they have to be in place anyway).
And when you have any evidence that program, run by the FED is in serious jeopardy of not getting it's money back too, let us all know. It's not as if they handed out money to just buy junk that was worthless. The LOANS they granted to provide liquidity were collaterized by assets the banks provided that were evaluated by the FED and judged to be sufficient to cover the loans. Much like the TARP money that was handed out. Just pointing at something, which you apparently don;t even understand and spreading FUD does nothing to support your position. The TARP funds that I provided a cite to that were involved with buying similar "toxic assets" are showing nice profits at this point.
If anyone's confused here, it must be you. I never said you were a liberal and I certainly never said you were a Limbaugh dittohead. I just compared the TARP program, which is a resounding success to Obama's stimulus. In the case of TARP, with what's already been paid back and the current market value of the investments the govt holds, nearly the whole $700bil is back in the hands of the govt. It will almost certainly show a profit when it's over. Contrary to the claims of many, it did not add to the budget deficit that Bush left. In the case of the Obama stimulus, well $800bil went out the window never to be seen again.....
So, sorry, but I think that's a perfectly legitimate defense of TARP.
On 2/19/2011 11:49 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote: ...
Perhaps; perhaps not in the sense you're _probably_ thinking of in that the historical mishmash of stuff will (imo) likely continue to be expensive even in the future to reprocess effectively. Later locations that have segregated more carefully, perhaps.
But, the future is already here for some things like methane gas recovery for either resale or on-site or commercial generation.
--
My older brother was once involved in coalfield methane recovery. It's interesting stuff and I know there are some plants running on methane from landfills. That might work better if waste haulers separated all biomass from other garbage and dumped it in specific landfills used like a giant compost heap. Methane could be produced and fertilizer mined from the same pile. I'm trying to think of a way it could be done.
TDD
Your link is broken, I'd really like to see it. Check out:
On 2/21/2011 2:52 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote: ...
...
NB: Somehow the "s" in "profiles" got losted...
--
COOL! Thanks, I'm an information junkie at times. :-)
TDD
...
Well, if you're really interested in a little more than "there's a project", here's presentation slides Mike gave at a conference that shows some of the details of the extraction and collection systems (as well as some other projects)--
Here's the link to page w/ Mike's bio info from the same conference web page--
--
Wow, that's a fantastic use of what was once considered useless garbage. :-)
TDD
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.