Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics


Thanks Tree17Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 31st, 2018, 08:27 AM   #31
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
You need to include "the East" as it keeps increasing its per capita energy and carbon footprints with each passing year, too.
The whole world has been running some form of "free trade" capitalism since 1989. The Soviet Union's version of communism was trying...if unsuccessfully, to copy western consumer capitalist models, so that would have been of little help.

The biggest change in environmental impacts have been India and China. India was caught between the westernization goals of the first PM- Nehru and Congress Party followups vs the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi, which most Indians, including higher caste Hindus followed, which emphasized local production, simplicity over modernization and local government. The rise of the BJP and especially this asshole Indian version of Trump they got now has provided India all of the plusses and minuses of focusing on modernization and economic growth: huge and growing disparities in wealth and income, increasing environmental destruction-land, water and air pollution, and resource depletion. Same thing happened in China after Mao's allies were permanently displaced by the followers of Chou En Lai, who have shown once and for all that "capitalism does NOT promote democracy!"

China and India have become world economic powers, but this is a short term trend that neither have the resources or ecosystems to sustain for more than a couple of decades at best. Chinese leaders at least have the foresight to wake up and take notice of the poisoning of the air in large cities...a phenomena that did not exist during those years we watched video of millions of Mao jacket-wearing cyclists pedalling their way through cities like Beijing and Shanghai.

China has been smart enough to reverse course on its plans to build over 1000! coalfired generating stations, and are focusing on high speed rail and mass transit again while trying to curb the number of cars on the roadways. This is a key part of the rapidly intensifying demand for rare earth elements plus cobalt and lithium...which may as well be added to the category because future supplies can't possibly meet demands needed to put literally millions of electric cars on the roads of this world. We could also mention metals like copper are being impacted by the electric car boom because larger amounts of copper are needed in vehicles with batteries and electric motors than I/C engines.

So far, it seems it's taken until at least a couple of years after major hedge fund brokers on Wall Street started buying up large stakes in rare metals mining operations before Bloomberg, WSJ and other journals that are supposed to inform investors about this and other new "green" technology dilemmas that things will get worse as demand increases.

Last edited by right to left; January 31st, 2018 at 08:29 AM.
right to left is online now  
Old January 31st, 2018, 09:15 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NM
Posts: 1,836
Economic/development history

Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
The whole world has been running some form of "free trade" capitalism since 1989. The Soviet Union's version of communism was trying...if unsuccessfully, to copy western consumer capitalist models, so that would have been of little help.

The biggest change in environmental impacts have been India and China. India was caught between the westernization goals of the first PM- Nehru and Congress Party followups vs the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi, which most Indians, including higher caste Hindus followed, which emphasized local production, simplicity over modernization and local government. The rise of the BJP and especially this asshole Indian version of Trump they got now has provided India all of the plusses and minuses of focusing on modernization and economic growth: huge and growing disparities in wealth and income, increasing environmental destruction-land, water and air pollution, and resource depletion. Same thing happened in China after Mao's allies were permanently displaced by the followers of Chou En Lai, who have shown once and for all that "capitalism does NOT promote democracy!"

...
I think Stalin was much more interested in kicking the USSR into modern heavy industry, in order to build military hardware - tanks, aircraft, missiles, arty & so on. & the gear & uniforms for the military & national police & so on. The Soviets weren't interested - @ the state level - in the domestic consumer market @ all - they had a command economy, & they commanded it to strive mightily to match the West's productivity. With byzantine central planning & cooked books anyway, it wasn't possible. There was no mediating reality between the fantasy of the Five-year plans & the World - & so their economy crashed. (Plus they had enormous losses of population & infrastructure from WWII, & even before that - & during - they locked away or worked to death or shot out of hand anyone deemed politically unreliable - a lot of their engineering & scientific & military & agricultural talent.)

I think China & India have taken Stalin as a model for heavy industry emphasis - the Chinese can actually implement the same methods, if they want to. India has to be slightly more subtle. I don't take the economic models in China nor India as capitalism - it's more state capitalism, along the lines of what Mussolini was trying to do in Italy. Except that the China & India models seem to work better - as long as China can manufacture for the World. I'm not sure what India's trade advantage is - they do seem to have a massive workforce, but it doesn't look to have a widespread literacy & familiarity with factories & warehouses & production methods. But maybe they can work around that.
Thanks from right to left
hoosier88 is offline  
Old January 31st, 2018, 03:21 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 7,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
I don't know how much the efficiency of fuel cells has increased in the past 10 years but in 2008 I did a study on them and fuel to wheel efficiency of them was about equal to a diesel car at the time, about 22%.

If you are getting hydrogen from an existing power plant I also question the benefit in terms of CO2 production as electrolysis is only 60% efficient.

Another practical problem is that platinum electrodes are needed, and for commercial scale they would need to be huge. Last time I checked, platinum was 3 times the price of gold.

Low cost water electrolysis is another one of the technologies that will happen in about 10 years every time it is talked about, and has been for the past 50 years.

I'm not familiar with the chlorine plant process or the nuke byproduct. I'll look into it.

But another issue is that if you took all the wind power generated in the US in 2016 plus all the name plate output of all the PV cells in the US and used that to make hydrogen, it would only be 3% of the energy content of the gasoline being used in the US. (This was a hurried back of the envelope type calculation, feel free to check my numbers.)

So that future would need a lot of things to happen.

If I get bored, I might do a study on comparable efficiency of EVs.
I'm no expert. 11 years ago I had the privilege of spending the day at a manufacturers HFC vehicle development lab. Actually got to drive a million plus dollar prototype. The car I drove was at the time three generations old. That car made a little over 100 hp and got the equivalent of 30 mpg city and almost 60 highway. Pretty impressive I thought. The engineers claimed they were taking a wells to wheels approach so a gain in one area wouldn't be completely offset by a loss in another. At the time they said they HFCs were anywhere from 20% to 40% more efficient than current ICE cars.

What the engineers told me was they were making good progress on making the fuel cell both smaller and more efficient. At the same time that were also making progress on the motors themselves. Getting more power from smaller packages. Their goal at the time, and they believed it was reachable, was to produce a car that produced upwards of 400 horsepower (100 hp motor at each wheel) and achieved the energy equivalent of 100 mpg.

I haven't checked the numbers or performance but Honda has fro several years been offering an HFC car called the Clarity, they've now expanded the range to a regular plug in electric and a plug in hybrid. Toyota is selling an HFC car called Mirai.
BubbaJones is offline  
Old January 31st, 2018, 06:09 PM   #34
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 30,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
I'm no expert. 11 years ago I had the privilege of spending the day at a manufacturers HFC vehicle development lab. Actually got to drive a million plus dollar prototype. The car I drove was at the time three generations old. That car made a little over 100 hp and got the equivalent of 30 mpg city and almost 60 highway. Pretty impressive I thought. The engineers claimed they were taking a wells to wheels approach so a gain in one area wouldn't be completely offset by a loss in another. At the time they said they HFCs were anywhere from 20% to 40% more efficient than current ICE cars.

What the engineers told me was they were making good progress on making the fuel cell both smaller and more efficient. At the same time that were also making progress on the motors themselves. Getting more power from smaller packages. Their goal at the time, and they believed it was reachable, was to produce a car that produced upwards of 400 horsepower (100 hp motor at each wheel) and achieved the energy equivalent of 100 mpg.

I haven't checked the numbers or performance but Honda has fro several years been offering an HFC car called the Clarity, they've now expanded the range to a regular plug in electric and a plug in hybrid. Toyota is selling an HFC car called Mirai.
Where I live there is a company called Ballard Power Systems. They were the first to put HFCs in city busses. They tried that for years and their stock surged based on their promise of getting the technology good for personal vehicles. It never happened. They don't even do busses any more. Their whole business now is smaller power installations for remote locations.

I have tried to get some specs on the commercially available HFC cars but they seem to be keeping those quiet.

And don't forget the energy loss due to the electrolysis step in your calculations.
RNG is offline  
Old February 2nd, 2018, 08:01 AM   #35
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier88 View Post
I think Stalin was much more interested in kicking the USSR into modern heavy industry, in order to build military hardware - tanks, aircraft, missiles, arty & so on. & the gear & uniforms for the military & national police & so on. The Soviets weren't interested - @ the state level - in the domestic consumer market @ all - they had a command economy, & they commanded it to strive mightily to match the West's productivity. With byzantine central planning & cooked books anyway, it wasn't possible. There was no mediating reality between the fantasy of the Five-year plans & the World - & so their economy crashed. (Plus they had enormous losses of population & infrastructure from WWII, & even before that - & during - they locked away or worked to death or shot out of hand anyone deemed politically unreliable - a lot of their engineering & scientific & military & agricultural talent.)
First, I got to ask: if central planning and control is so bureaucratic and lethally ineffective, how the hell do you explain corporations like Walmart? Where the mother corporation is planning and tracking the movements of all of their products from their overseas suppliers through to the store shelf. There is no "free market competition" within the corporate structure EXCEPT for a few imbeciles like Sears...which had some idiot market libertarian at the helm and demanded that various divisions of Sears compete against each other....we all know how well that worked out for them!

Central planniing also enabled Walmart to eliminate the middlemen in the retail industry which used to locate, test out and recommend new products to individual retailers. Walmart's big cost breakthrough was taking control of the entire process and eliminating the in-between levels of the process...so much for the pitfalls of central planning!

Actually, Stalin did not trust his generals(who frequently conspired with Russian imperialists and foreign interests to instigate military coups and overthrow the Government), and the Soviet Union did not even begin to build tanks, warplanes and other military hardware until signing a peace treaty with Nazi Germany. This provided some breathing space to try to build up military forces to counter the expected inevitable German invasion of the Soviet Union to try to destroy communism. The only big surprise was that Hitler coulldn't take the advice of his generals-like Rommel, and finish off England first, before starting an eastern front campaign.

You're right about Stalin wanting to focus on heavy industry; and an economic system called 'Input-Input'(which I can't seem to find in a title search) was created to rapidly increase steel production by using a large portion of steel produced to build new steel mills and related infrastructure for a faster increase in industrial production.

A consumer communist system, aping the consumer capitalism of America and the west didn't begin until Kruschev and later 'reformers,' who used western proliferation of cars, TV sets, refrigerators etc. as the yardstick to measure the success of their communist system. So, it wasn't all about military production, and the military didn't rise to priority one until Hitler's German regime started imprisoning and killing off communist party leaders in Germany and threatening further action against communists everywhere.
*On that note, is it any surprise that the likely majority of political and business leadership in the US and England was on side with Hitler and the Nazis early on until they realized he couldn't be bargained with?
Quote:
I think China & India have taken Stalin as a model for heavy industry emphasis - the Chinese can actually implement the same methods, if they want to. India has to be slightly more subtle. I don't take the economic models in China nor India as capitalism - it's more state capitalism, along the lines of what Mussolini was trying to do in Italy. Except that the China & India models seem to work better - as long as China can manufacture for the World. I'm not sure what India's trade advantage is - they do seem to have a massive workforce, but it doesn't look to have a widespread literacy & familiarity with factories & warehouses & production methods. But maybe they can work around that.
The state capitalism models, which seem no different than the early, rapidly industrializing fazes of state communism seem to follow the same trajectory: in the beginning, where resources and available labor are plentiful, everything's going great...rapid year over year economic growth, BUT eventually a point is reached in both systems where various factors from lack of consumer need or demand, resource and other environmental constraints, all begin to reign in economic growth, as we are seeing today with the slowdown in GDP numbers worldwide...nobody, especially foreign investors trusts China's GDP numbers anymore, which try to fudge the declines that are actually greater than official numbers will declare.

I said before, a long time ago perhaps, that my problems with communist system are not about where they differ with capitalism, BUT what communism and capitalism have in common! Both systems are products of modern European enlightenment humanist thinking...which have been loudly proclaiming human supremacy over the natural world and the natural systems that govern life on Planet Earth. I keep track of the new, under 40 generation of communist thinkers and writers, and they are as eqaually enthralled with new technology...envisioning a world with robotic workstations and populations freed up from having to do any actual real work! The difference is the communists believe that societies have responsibilities to people who's jobs have been made redundant, which capitalists don't! That's better, but it's still delusional to believe that manmade technology can innovate our way out of hard limits applied by resource availablity(increasingly dependent on rare exotic metals and minerals requiring increasing environmental devastation to access supplies)and the limits already being applied by soils in agricultural zones that are so burned out and used up, analysts are predicting now that major food-growing regions of the entire planet have till 2060 at the most to get any significant yields from these regions....and that's not even accounting for the devastions that will be applied by climate change!

As I see it, we need political and economic policies that function within the limits that nature applies to all creatures within the biosphere...regardless of how smart they think they are!
right to left is online now  
Old February 2nd, 2018, 08:43 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NM
Posts: 1,836
The Great Game - domestic version

Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
First, I got to ask: if central planning and control is so bureaucratic and lethally ineffective, how the hell do you explain corporations like Walmart? Where the mother corporation is planning and tracking the movements of all of their products from their overseas suppliers through to the store shelf.
...

Actually, Stalin did not trust his generals(who frequently conspired with Russian imperialists and foreign interests to instigate military coups and overthrow the Government), and the Soviet Union did not even begin to build tanks, warplanes and other military hardware until signing a peace treaty with Nazi Germany. This provided some breathing space to try to build up military forces to counter the expected inevitable German invasion of the Soviet Union to try to destroy communism. The only big surprise was that Hitler coulldn't take the advice of his generals-like Rommel, and finish off England first, before starting an eastern front campaign.

...
So Walmart is like the Soviet Union? No - Walmart is a sharply limited enterprise, a business only. & WM has the advantage of computer inventory, barcodes, just-in-time delivery & micromanagement of their supplier streams. The USSR had none of that, & didn't even have a pricing mechanism. (WM sets economic goals in terms of price reductions from the suppliers, or market share - for other purposes, they charge what they can efficiently get - which is part of capitalism's advantage over Communism as an economic system - without real money or purchasing power driving economic transactions, prices are set by fiat - which led to stuff like Soviet farmers feeding bread [highly subsidized] to their livestock, because it was nearly free - & certainly cost far less than the equivalent fodder.)

As I recall, the USSR was invaded by the victorious WWI allies, in an attempt to smother the baby in the crib. (Plus aid & money & military supplies to the White Russians, & anybody else who would play along, during & after WWI.) With that history, Stalin had a substantial military, as I recall. It was poorly led, because Stalin kept purging generals, not letting officers get to know their troops, & putting political officers in to mind the general staff.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army

"When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, in Operation Barbarossa, the Red Army's ground forces had 303 divisions and 22 separate brigades (6.8 million soldiers), including 166 divisions and 9 brigades (3.2 million soldiers) garrisoned in the western military districts. The Axis forces deployed on the Eastern Front consisted of 181 divisions and 18 brigades (3 million soldiers). Three Fronts, the Northwestern, Western, and Southwestern conducted the defense of the western borders of the USSR. In the first weeks of the Great Patriotic War the Wehrmacht defeated many Red Army units. The Red Army lost millions of men as prisoners and lost much of its pre-war matériel. Stalin increased mobilization, and by 1 August 1941, despite 46 divisions lost in combat, the Red Army's strength was 401 divisions.[46]

"The Soviet forces were apparently unprepared despite numerous warnings from a variety of sources.[47] They suffered much damage in the field because of mediocre officers, partial mobilization, and an incomplete reorganization.[48] The hasty pre-war forces expansion and the over-promotion of inexperienced officers (owing to the purging of experienced officers) favored the Wehrmacht in combat.[49][page needed] The Axis's numeric superiority rendered the combatants' divisional strength approximately equal.[d] A generation of Soviet commanders (notably Georgy Zhukov) learned from the defeats,[51] and Soviet victories in the Battle of Moscow, at Stalingrad, Kursk and later in Operation Bagration proved decisive."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

The USSR needed their military to be effective, to fend off Germany &/or the WWI allies. Why Stalin thought he could shred the shield & then yet rely on it - is an imponderable.

Last edited by hoosier88; February 2nd, 2018 at 09:20 AM. Reason: fix
hoosier88 is offline  
Old February 2nd, 2018, 09:41 AM   #37
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,557
The USSR had none of this because these were technologies that hadn't been invented at the time. Nevertheless all your blather about "limited business" does not address the point I'm making: large multinational corporations are centrally controlled and centrally planned enterprizes. The few who aren't...like Sears again, don't last very long and dissolve into chaos. When corporate power is greater than state power...as it is in our era where politicians are bought and sold by billionaires and their corporate structures, the freemarketeers need to provide some real reasons why a strategy that functions for private enterprize is considered bad for state enterprize!

My hunch is that the concerns over bureaucracy are just bleatings about systems that threaten to limit corporate power and income, and nothing more! As I've read of America's Medicare system, it functions much more efficiently than any of the private insurance companies that so often charge high premiums and come up with creative ways to limit or end payouts when it's time to pay the hospital.

As for Barbarossa, I was talking about the Soviet re-arming and buildup for war; I wasn't commenting on their readiness for the actual German Invasion blitzkreig, which they may not have been prepared for, as Stalin was purging generals in 1938 and 39.
right to left is online now  
Old February 2nd, 2018, 10:00 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NM
Posts: 1,836
The nomenklatura had too much faith in paper

Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
The USSR had none of this because these were technologies that hadn't been invented at the time. Nevertheless all your blather about "limited business" does not address the point I'm making: large multinational corporations are centrally controlled and centrally planned enterprizes. The few who aren't...like Sears again, don't last very long and dissolve into chaos.

...

As for Barbarossa, I was talking about the Soviet re-arming and buildup for war; I wasn't commenting on their readiness for the actual German Invasion blitzkreig, which they may not have been prepared for, as Stalin was purging generals in 1938 and 39.
Nah, there were pricing mechanisms in place, & functioning quite well in the Industrial Revolution & in the West in general. But Marxism & then Trotsky & then Stalinism, wanted to put distance between themselves & the bourgeois West (even though Communism derives from the West, & is itself a kind of parody of Christianity) - & so they ignored pricing set by markets, & opted for pricing by fiat. Which functioned just as well as you would expect, scientific or no.

Sears, BTW, has run for a long time - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears

"Sears, Roebuck and Company, colloquially known as Sears, is an American chain of department stores founded by Richard Warren Sears and Alvah Curtis Roebuck in 1892 and 1906. Formerly based at the Sears Tower in Chicago and currently headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, the operation began as a mail ordering catalog company and began opening retail locations in 1925. The first location was in Evansville, Indiana. The company was bought by the management of the American big box chain Kmart in 2005, the Kmart management formed Sears Holdings upon completion of the merger. In terms of domestic revenue, Sears was the largest retailer in the United States until October 1989, when Walmart surpassed the record.[3]"

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

The Red Army's development is tied into Soviet history, of course. See the article I referenced before, it sketches a brief history. The Red Army was reformed as a volunteer army, poorly armed, & with no tanks, aircraft, heavy weapons. Stalin began a modernization drive, especially after seeing German & Italian armor & tactical aircraft in the Spanish Civil War - but the USSR was still late to the party. They did get the knack of it, though.

There were also real production problems - to inflate numbers to meet the goals of Five year plans, obsolete tanks & etc. were produced - with no spares, needing frequent maintenance, with poor training - all hallmarks of centralized Soviet planning - which is what we were discussing before.
Thanks from Sabcat
hoosier88 is offline  
Old February 4th, 2018, 09:42 AM   #39
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier88 View Post
Nah, there were pricing mechanisms in place, & functioning quite well in the Industrial Revolution & in the West in general. But Marxism & then Trotsky & then Stalinism, wanted to put distance between themselves & the bourgeois West (even though Communism derives from the West, & is itself a kind of parody of Christianity) - & so they ignored pricing set by markets, & opted for pricing by fiat. Which functioned just as well as you would expect, scientific or no.
My task wasn't intended to promote or defend centralized control/but to demonstrate that it proliferates through all private and public systems that have monopolies or near monopolies, and can set their own prices...think of America's telecom oligopolies as a quick example: the US pays the most for the worst and slowest speed internet service in the developed world, while private monopolies continue raising prices to customers with no other options/while cutting wages and staff to maximize their own profits!

Most Marxists...even in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries were working in cooperatively managed workplaces. In her recent book on collapse of 20th century communist states(Red Hangover-https://www.amazon.com/Red-Hangover-.../dp/0822369494, Kristen Ghodsee(who married a Bulgarian in grad school and moved with him to his homeland during the fall and capitalist aftermath) relates a story about the competition between two companies that made typewriters in the old pre-computer days. 'Olympia' based in West Germany, and 'Rhimestall' in East Germany, competed for decades against each other in many third world markets that purchased from east and west. Ghodsee, who still prefers old manual typewriters to do her writing, relates a story about how she usually has an Olympia and a Rhimestall typewriter on her desk side-by-side, and uses both machines...made with the old standards and technologies that work for decades. Both machines(purchased 2nd hand) are easy to use and work flawlessly as they did more than 50 years ago when they were made. So, in the example of her beloved typewriters, Ghodsee sees no particular differences between a communist-made or a capitalist-made machine.
Compared to the way consumer products turn into instant,unservicable junk within 5 years today, it's hard to see how following capitalist market forces has provided better products for us to use today!

Something has obviously gone wrong since the "end of history" when capitalism no longer faced external competition and was free to bribe or eliminate intransigent politicians standing in the way of mergers, privatization of public services, attacks against unions and remove laws and restrictions preventing poisoning the environment. Capitalism unfettered has turned into a nightmare after ending communist competition.
Quote:

Sears, BTW, has run for a long time - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears

"Sears, Roebuck and Company, colloquially known as Sears, is an American chain of department stores founded by Richard Warren Sears and Alvah Curtis Roebuck in 1892 and 1906. Formerly based at the Sears Tower in Chicago and currently headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, the operation began as a mail ordering catalog company and began opening retail locations in 1925. The first location was in Evansville, Indiana. The company was bought by the management of the American big box chain Kmart in 2005, the Kmart management formed Sears Holdings upon completion of the merger. In terms of domestic revenue, Sears was the largest retailer in the United States until October 1989, when Walmart surpassed the record.[3]"

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)
Which doesn't address my point that a CEO who decided to apply 'market forces' to the operations of Sears at a time when it reigned supreme in retail (a position where Walmart is today), and almost destroyed the company...certainly crippling Sears and consigning Sears to a category in both Canada and the US where it is on life support and liquidators are hovering like vultures waiting for the day when Sears completely ceases operations and is dissolved. The beginning of the end for Sears started with an absurd strategy to encourage internal competition within the organization.
Quote:
The Red Army's development is tied into Soviet history, of course. See the article I referenced before, it sketches a brief history. The Red Army was reformed as a volunteer army, poorly armed, & with no tanks, aircraft, heavy weapons. Stalin began a modernization drive, especially after seeing German & Italian armor & tactical aircraft in the Spanish Civil War - but the USSR was still late to the party. They did get the knack of it, though.

There were also real production problems - to inflate numbers to meet the goals of Five year plans, obsolete tanks & etc. were produced - with no spares, needing frequent maintenance, with poor training - all hallmarks of centralized Soviet planning - which is what we were discussing before.
Put a pin in this and compare it with the stories that have gone on and increased in recent years about the corruption and cost overruns of America's weapons contractors, who have one guaranteed customer who once locked in to a new system with constant scaremongering about "military threats" in the world, are stuck with crap like the ever-increasing F-35: a plane that will never be reliable or be able to do the job it was supposed to do.

There are some real military experts who have been warning for years that new highspeed/maneuverable missile systems will demolish America's carrier fleet in a major conventional war, because regardless of how many defending ships surround an aircraft carrier, nor how many planes it has flying overhead, all it takes is one anti-ship missile to hit its target and its game over for the carrier base, and yet the arms merchants are still rattling the bars in Washington demanding more be built in the future! Same goes for air attacks:the Air Force will have to count on its existing drones, F-15's and stealth fighters and bombers to try to control airspace, because the F-35 is just a multibillion dollar sinkhole! And if Russia or Turkey or Iran or some other combattant with lots of S-400 missile systems, will likely annihilate US or Israeli fighters and bombers trying to launch full scale air attacks.

In both military and civilian applications, 5 year plans are a better way of moving forward than the methods of capitalism today.
right to left is online now  
Old February 4th, 2018, 09:54 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NM
Posts: 1,836
Call the question

Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
My task wasn't intended to promote or defend centralized control/but to demonstrate that it proliferates through all private and public systems that have monopolies or near monopolies, and can set their own prices ...

In both military and civilian applications, 5 year plans are a better way of moving forward than the methods of capitalism today.
Yah, Sears is on the ropes, apparently. & where is the USSR these days? If the economics of central control were efficient & etc., Wouldn't the USSR still be a going concern? I thought their economy collapsed, & when it couldn't produce for the elites, then the whole edifice tumbled down. That's not what happened?
hoosier88 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics

Tags
car, crunch, dreams, electric, hype, meets, metal, reality, resoure, run, scarcity



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Special Report on Brexit/Fantasy Meets Reality Toto2 Current Events 0 June 25th, 2016 12:53 PM
Day is done Shut down no big deal, all hype TNVolunteer73 Current Events 13 October 2nd, 2013 04:41 PM
Budget Crunch Forces A New Approach To Prisons npr Current Events 0 February 14th, 2011 08:01 PM
Hype tyrone_det Politicians 6 November 7th, 2008 01:39 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.