Obama says cleaner energy will help job creation

Apr 02, 2011
The Mercedes A-class E cell battery driven concept car on display at the 2011 North American International Auto Show in Detroit in January. US President Barack Obama said a transition to cleaner energy will help create more American jobs as he promoted his new initiative designed to reduce US energy imports by a third.

US President Barack Obama said Saturday that a transition to cleaner energy will help create more American jobs as he promoted his new initiative designed to reduce US energy imports by a third.

Shifting toward a economy "will ensure that the United States of America is home to the jobs and industries of tomorrow," Obama said in his weekly address after new figures showed the reached a two-year low in March, signaling a turnaround in the troubled labor market.

"That's how we'll win the future. And that's how we'll leave our children an America that is more secure and prosperous than before."

While still high at 8.8 percent, the jobless rate was the lowest since March 2009, thanks to a solid rise in nonfarm payrolls, the Labor Department reported.

On Wednesday, Obama also called for cutting US oil imports by a third in a just over a decade. In a major speech laying out a blueprint for a secure American energy future, he warned that events like Japan's tsunami tragedy and crises roiling across the Middle East made it even more vital to shield the US economy from rising fuel costs.

The plan calls for tapping new sources of energy, including natural gas, biofuels like ethanol, switchgrass, wood chips and biomass -- and highlights government efforts to cut .

"We're going to use cleaner sources of that don't imperil our climate," Obama said in his radio address. "And we're going to spark new products and businesses all over the country by tapping America's greatest renewable resource: our ingenuity."

He noted that significant steps had already been made, but more needed to be done.

"As we make our cars and trucks more efficient, we've got to harness new technologies to fuel our vehicles with everything from biofuels to natural gas to advanced batteries," the president noted. "And the good news is, these technologies aren't science fiction anymore. They exist today."

Innovators across America were testing new products he praised for holding "incredible promise" not just for new vehicles, but for new jobs."

Explore further: Court won't restore Oracle's $1.3B verdict vs. SAP

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Obama gives $2 billion to solar energy companies

Jul 03, 2010

US President Barack Obama announced on Saturday the awarding of nearly two billion dollars to two solar energy companies that have agreed to build new power plants in the United States, creating thousands ...

Obama promotes clean energy; GOP hits Dem spending

Oct 02, 2010

(AP) -- Wind, solar and other clean energy technologies produce jobs and are essential for the country's environment and economy, President Barack Obama said in promoting his administration's efforts.

US launches renewable energy initiative

Oct 22, 2010

The United States launched a renewable energy initiative to boost biofuel production to create jobs, lessen the effects of climate change and wean the country off oil imports, an official said.

Obama puts up $2.4 bln for electric vehicles

Mar 19, 2009

President Barack Obama Thursday unveiled a 2.4 billion dollar boost for electric vehicle development, vowing to compete with foreign nations in the race to be world leader on renewable energy.

Obama calls for new era of energy exploration

Apr 23, 2009

(AP) -- President Barack Obama, standing Wednesday in the shell of a once-giant Maytag appliance factory that now houses a wind energy company, declared that a "new era of energy exploration in America" would ...

Recommended for you

Chinese e-commerce rivals challenge Alibaba (Update)

14 hours ago

China's biggest property developer, Wanda Group, and Internet giants Baidu and Tencent unveiled a new e-commerce venture Friday in a challenge to industry leader Alibaba Group ahead of its U.S. stock offering.

Nigeria launches national identity card scheme

Aug 28, 2014

Nigeria's President Goodluck Jonathan on Thursday launched a national electronic identity card scheme, which backers said would boost access to financial and government services in Africa's most populous nation.

User comments : 55

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2011
Yes, jobs will be created but not value. Squeegeman and leafblower-boy jobs will be created but they will continue to suck the value from employment and the dollar. Remember the root of 'dollar', dolor and leafblower-boy knows that sad word.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 03, 2011
Obama says cleaner energy will help job creation


It's the capitalism paradox, and Obama does not understand it.

Improving the efficiency of machines DECREASES jobs. This is not to be contested, we have mountains of historical proofs for this.

Start with harvesting grain. Armies of workers were needed to harvest fields before the first mechanical harvesters were invented. Then as more and more advanced machines were invented, one person could then do the job of hundreds.

Inventing machines which do something faster and more efficiently does NOT create a net gain in jobs...EVER...

This is why capitalism is doomed to fail, because eventually the need for human labor of any kind decreases more and more, until the currency no longer works, as is currently the case. The poverty level in the U.S. is what it is because almost no "producers" are actually needed any more, and capitalism punishes anyone who doesn't have a job, even if it's through no fault of their own.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2011
And some naive fool might say, "Well, jobs are created to make the machines."

No, not really. Some temporary engineering jobs are created to make the ROBOTS which make the machines, then a handful of maintenance techs do the jobs of hundreds of humans via the robots...

Technology does not create jobs. It doesn't.

The whole point of technology is to make work easier, which ultimately reduces the number of workers required in any given field or trade.

The end result of this is that in order to have any semblance of decency, at some point the currency of developed nations WILL fail (or else there will be a civil war as the 40% to 60% lower class gets sick of the rich abusing them,) and this system must be replaced with a system based on sharing and true fairness.

In the past, our economy was driven by the housing market, but since abortion and "family planning" have removed population growth, we no longer need as many new houses.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2011
Now since we don't need new houses, and robots and other forms of automation replace more and more harvesting and production jobs, this means that the total number of jobs availabe always decreases as technology increases, since the "needs" of the people always stay about the same, while the efficiency of the systems always improves.

I mean, look around, we still have actors, athletes and other circus clowns making 16 million per year to play football, and 20 million per film to make movies, even in the middle of the second worst recession/depression in the nation's history. So it's not like we're out of food, clothing, or shelter (unless you happen to be one of those poor individuals in about the lower 30% who are the most abused by the system and the top 10%.) Hey, everyone has a super computer in their pocket, and tomorrow they'll have a tricorder in their pocket, because the Smart Phones are headed that way already.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2011
So don't let the deceiver Obama tell you that new energy efficient technologies are going to "create new jobs". That's an outright lie, because half the jobs it creates are only "temporary" until start up facilities get going, and then they go away too, and in the long term, the jobs replaced by the new technologies will be more than the jobs created by them, so there will be a net DECREASE in jobs in the long term.

The point of all this is capitalism simply does not work and cannot work in a type 1 civilization. We aren't a type 1 civilization yet, but we are closer than we've ever been.

What needs to be done is to shorten the work week MANDATORILY and hire more people to take up the slack, this way there would be fewer unemployed people.

Eventually, as technology advances, workers will need to be in rotating "courses", working half the year, and spending the remainder of the year in school catching up on the technology invented in the past 6 months.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2011
Improving the efficiency of machines DECREASES jobs.

Looks like you need a lesson in economics.

Socialists can't, or won't, seem to understand how wealth is created.

"Poor people are not poor because of low wages. For the most part, they're poor because of low productivity, and wages are connected to productivity. "
http://www.desere...tml?pg=2
Higher productivity creates opportunities for increased specialization to satisfy the limitless needs and wants of people.
QC, are your 'needs' constant? Do you live in a mud hut, raise your own food, etc?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2011
QC:
"In pre-industrial society and in many places in the world still today, the most optimistic scenario for the ordinary citizen was to be able to eke out enough to meet his physical needs for another day. But with the rise of capitalism and the concomitant rise in human productivity that yielded seemingly ceaseless economic progress, it was no longer necessary for mankind to spend his entire day simply providing for minimum physical needs. People were able to satisfy their physical needs with less and less time. This made it possible for them to have the time and resources to develop spiritually and culturally."
http://www.hillsd...month=03
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2011
(cont)
"In other words, the rise of capitalism enabled the gradual extension of civilization to greater and greater numbers of people. More of them have time available to read, become educated in the liberal arts and gain more knowledge about the world around them. Greater wealth permits them to attend the arts, afford recreation, contemplate more fulfilling and interesting life activities and enjoy other culturally enriching activities that were formerly within the purview of only the rich. How was all this achieved? In a market system, enterprise profits are performance-related; they come about through a process of finding out what human wants are not being met and finding ways to meet them. "
http://www.hillsd...month=03
Higher productivity creates more opportunities.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2011
In the past, our economy was driven by the housing market, but since abortion and "family planning" have removed population growth, we no longer need as many new houses.
This is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Our economy became so strong due to the fact that our only industrial competition was in ruins post WW2. Housing didn't become our metric until post Nixon. And that has been a constant rollercoaster of boom and bust, deregulation and income inequality expansion. It will very soon change.

We're in a unique position compared to the rest of the world and we're letting it vanish. Wind and solar, until recently, was almost entirely manufactured in the US and overseas in Europe.

Now China is doing the majority of it because they've invited US companies, like GE and Global Dynamics to manufacture in their country. Since they're the largest buyer it makes perfect sense to do so. Being last on this, lost jobs.
Quantum_Conundrum
4 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2011
Poor people are not poor because of low wages. For the most part, they're poor because of low productivity, and wages are connected to productivity


That is one of the biggest lies that I've ever seen in my life.

Most of the wealthiest people in the world "produce" absolutely nothing. With few exceptions, they make their money by exploiting the poor and average people, who are the ones who ACTUALLY do the inventing and producing.

Wages are mostly set by the employer, regardless of productivity, and average people have little choice other than to take what they get, and maybe if they're lucky they can haggle over a 50 cent raise or something. But basicly you're full of it.

Also, even if everyone had a phd, low income jobs would still exist. You'd still want someone to cook your food for you at the fast food place, and you'd still want janitors and you'd still want a leaf blower boy, etc, so you are full of it anyway.
Quantum_Conundrum
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2011
rygg:

You're just plain wrong and ridiculous anyway.

Many of the wealthiest people in America don't produce anything really, and don't have ANY real world skills at all. They include the circus clowns of course, which while not necessarily the top 100 or 500, are by and large the biggest body of multi-millionaires, and they got that way by playing games and "let's pretend".

movie stars, atheletes, musicians, etc....

The don't "produce" anything really, and certainly nothing relevant to "needs" of people. In fact, they are consumers of the worst sort, because they prey on the whims of people. They are a parasite on our civilization and people keep going back to them more and more. This had nothing to do with fairness or productivity, it's a pointless popularity contest that is already rigged, because a kid who's parents were rich gets an automatic audition with Disney or some other network to set them up for life to brainwash the next generation.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2011
What needs to be done is to shorten the work week MANDATORILY and hire more people to take up the slack, this way there would be fewer unemployed people.

France tried that. What was the result?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2011
And that has been a constant rollercoaster of boom and bust, deregulation and income inequality expansion.

What deregulation?

You're just plain wrong and ridiculous anyway.

Many of the wealthiest people in America don't produce anything really,

You are just plain WRONG as people DO VOLUNTARILY pay them to produce something THEY are willing to pay for. Maybe YOU would not pay for it, but they will. What a snob!
And the ONLY reason people can pay a few bucks and have the time to watch 'the clowns' is they are productive enough in their jobs to have the money AND time to spend as THEY choose.
QC wants to force people to essentially be slaves. To work in low productivity jobs to pay for their 'needs' and have zero time to do anything but work.
Not too long ago, the only source of money for the 'clowns' was the monarch so there were very few 'clowns'.
Now the world has entire industries of 'clowns' creating even more wealth.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2011
What deregulation?
Glass Stegal for one. Do you read anything at all? Do you not remember the massive deregulation of the banking industry since 1985?
QC wants to force people to essentially be slaves.
No a CEO who makes 400x his employees average salary is wage slavery, and you're the one protecting them.
You are just plain WRONG as people DO VOLUNTARILY pay them to produce something THEY are willing to pay for.
What does Steve Forbes produce? How about your hero Alan Greenspan?
France tried that. What was the result?
Higher productivity figures for 2 decades.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2011
Wages are mostly set by the employer, regardless of productivity

More BS and demonstrably false.

Do you not remember the massive deregulation of the banking industry since 1985?

What deregulation? Did the CRA still exist? How about FDIC? How about the Federal Reserve or SEC? There was NO deregulation. There was RE-regulation.

What does Steve Forbes produce?

Direction. Responsibility. Capital.

If being a CEO is so easy and pays so well, why don't SH and QC apply for the job? All they do is sit around raking in the cash, right?
That's what the political hacks do at the Govt sponsored enterprises like Freddie and Fannie. Politics pays so little poeple like Rahm and Jaimie Gorellick are appointed to a GSE, paid a few million and can then get back into politics.
"is an American attorney, presently representing BP"
"also served as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae.
from 1998 to 2002 Gorelick received a total of $26,466,834.00 in income.
Now she is up for top job at FBI
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2011
More BS and demonstrably false.
Demonstrate the majority of private sector wages being set by the employees. I've never been able to tell my boss I'm going to make an extra $2000 for the year.

And FYI: Unions are only 17% of the workforce, so that argument already set sail for you.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2011
"One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago's Rahm Emanuelnow chief of staff to President Barack Obamawho made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort."
http://www.chicag...73.story

Every job I have interviewed for I was asked what salary I was expecting to receive.

When Wang was going strong in Chelmsford, I recall that the fast food places had to pay more than minimum wage to attract anyone to 'flip burgers'.
In a state controlled economy, which SH and QC prefer, the employee would have NO choices to determine his salary.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2011
Every job I have interviewed for I was asked what salary I was expecting to receive.
All zero of them.
In a state controlled economy, which SH and QC prefer, the employee would have NO choices to determine his salary.
Neither of us have stated we want a state controlled economy. We both want a state regulated economy. You would prefer utter chaos as you think you have a chance to get into the upper class. Just a quick FYI: you don't. The only place you and your kids and family, as well as mine and QC's is down. Unless you're pulloing down a few million a year, your future, or your family's extended future, is bleak.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2011
Neither of us have stated we want a state controlled economy. We both want a state regulated economy.

What is the difference?
Why limit the minimum wage to $8/hr. Why not $50/hr or $100/hr?

he only place you and your kids and family, as well as mine and QC's is down.

That's because your regulatory state is devouring all the wealth.

All zero of them.

Another lie. You have been advised to be more skeptical.
Quantum_Conundrum
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2011
QC wants to force people to essentially be slaves. To work in low productivity jobs to pay for their 'needs' and have zero time to do anything but work.


No, not at all. I think you must have me confused with your hero Greenspan.

I am for social justice and equality, instead of the aristocracy we have today whereby, with only a few exceptions, the wealthy are "grandfathered in" because their parents were wealthy, and pretty much everyone else is just stuck.

If your mom/dad was a rock star or a country western singer or an actor or football player, guess what? You got a free ride in life and got "free" access to the best schools and coaches, etc, and so pretty much automatic second generation multi-millionaire (See any number of second generation pro athletes and second generation actors and singers, like Miley Cyrus, etc,) at the public expense, we might add, and it applies to most professions and businesses. Everyone else eats it.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2011
Neither of us have stated we want a state controlled economy. We both want a state regulated economy.

What is the difference?
Why limit the minimum wage to $8/hr. Why not $50/hr or $100/hr?
Because small business will need to be able to enter the market place. The minimum wage isn't the issue, the hours required in, lack of vacation time, lack of sick time and lack of benefits have changed significantly against the employee and to the benefit of the employer. This has created Plutachs in the CEOs of the nation who care only to inflate their bonus.
he only place you and your kids and family, as well as mine and QC's is down.

That's because your regulatory state is devouring all the wealth.
Bullshit. US income is a mere pittance of the several trillion dollars that world wide busniess make off the people of the world, tax free.
All zero of them.
Another lie. You have been advised to be more skeptical.
Then prove you're not Mr. Swenson.
Quantum_Conundrum
3 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2011

What is the difference?
Why limit the minimum wage to $8/hr. Why not $50/hr or $100/hr?


Minimum wage is not really the problem. In fact, in the existing system, that ends up inflating money and allowing the wealthy to abuse the system more and more.

That's because your regulatory state is devouring all the wealth.


No it isn't. The wealthy get richer every year, and the poor get poorer. This can't be contested, we have things called facts, you know, they even publish charts and graphs showing this just a few days ago. The wealthy are devouring all the wealth. You don't pay attention, do you?

Another lie. You have been advised to be more skeptical.


I was asked what I expected to receive as well, but don't actually expect to get what you "expect," or what you're worth, 'cause it's not going to happen.

And like SH pointed out, if you think a CEO making 400x the employees income just to stamp his name on some papers and shit is fair...you moron...
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2011
I am for social justice and equality,

Nice platitudes. How you you plan to make it so? You will ultimately have to resort to FORCE and make everyone a slave to your state.

{q]You got a free ride in life and got "free" access to the best schools and coaches, etc, and so pretty much automatic second generation multi-millionaire
You are going to have to work on your greed and envy.

BTW, have you paid any attention to what has happened to Ted Kennedy's son Patches?

Children of famous or rich people have no guarantee of any success, unless they have help from people in the government.
How far would Al Gore have gotten if his father wasn't a rich senator?

The Koch brothers took over their father's business and expanded it. Same for Howard Hughes.

When your equal outcome socialism is forced upon any nation, the poor would have zero opportunities to become wealthy and the politically powerful and their friends take all the wealth.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2011
QC wants to force people to essentially be slaves.


Actually, I want to respond to this again, because I made the observation that unemployment is actually caused by the increased efficiency of productivity due to technology, AND because of the way capitalism works, unemployment = poor.

In the next several years there will be lots of people earning masters and phd and other degrees, and many of them won't have jobs either, because they simply aren't needed.

The whole point of technology is to make life easier by making work easier. Capitalism fails in the long term, because you run out of "useless" things to employ people. Eventually you don't need any more gourmet cupcakes and sports memorabilia, so you don't have room for more "businesses" selling over-priced junk, collectibles, and gourmet foods. Then this means that eventually there are no jobs. Since capitalism only feeds and clothes someone who has a job, the poor and average are still poor and average.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2011
In fact, in the existing system, that ends up inflating money

That's called a fiat banking system controlled by the US government.

US debt: $14.3e12
World economic output: $74e12 (est)
So the US debt is ~20% of the entire world's output. Govt has no impact?

This should have been written:

This is bullshit: US income is a mere pittance of the several trillion dollars that world wide busniess make off the people of the world, tax free.


This is a nice chart:
http://en.wikiped...2003.png
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2011
Then this means that eventually there are no jobs. Since capitalism only feeds and clothes someone who has a job, the poor and average are still poor and average.
And the way to counter this is to keep the wealth disparity as small as possible. Once the wealth disparity is high enough, the plutarchs will buy the power from those like yourself by manipulation, and then a new Aristocracy is born. That's what you're suggesting. The reason why you don't see our point of view is because you think they're going to take you with them.

You're wrong.

This is a nice chart:
http://en.wikiped...2003.png
And this shows your point how?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2011


Actually, I want to respond to this again, because I made the observation that unemployment is actually caused by the increased efficiency of productivity due to technology, AND because of the way capitalism works, unemployment = poor.

In the next several years there will be lots of people earning masters and phd and other degrees, and many of them won't have jobs either, because they simply aren't needed.

The whole point of technology is to make life easier by making work easier. Capitalism fails in the long term, because you run out of "useless" things to employ people. Eventually you don't need any more gourmet cupcakes and sports memorabilia, so you don't have room for more "businesses" selling over-priced junk, collectibles, and gourmet foods. Then this means that eventually there are no jobs. Since capitalism only feeds and clothes someone who has a job, the poor and average are still poor and average.

How shortsighted! Billionaires are funding private space travel.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2011
How shortsighted! Billionaires are funding private space travel.
Yes, for other billionaires. When's your trip on the shuttle? Oh you can't afford the ticket? They can afford the ticket. They can afford to book the entire flight, several millions of times over. Meanwhile, public spaceflight is all but defunded entirely by the politicians that those private space companies put into power. I wonder why....
Quantum_Conundrum
3 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2011

Nice platitudes. How you you plan to make it so? You will ultimately have to resort to FORCE and make everyone a slave to your state.

Nobody would be a slave you idiot. Where do you get this crap

You are going to have to work on your greed and envy.


I don't think you know what the definitions of greed and envy are, because that is primarily what drives capitalism in the first place.

Children of famous or rich people have no guarantee of any success, unless they have help from people in the government.


Riiight...

omg...if I had a few million dollars to work with, or even half a million, then I could do a few very simple, obvious things and be set up to live like a KING for the rest of my life.

When your equal outcome socialism is forced upon any nation, the poor would have zero opportunities to become...


Where do you get this? People have zero opporutnities in capitalism unless they are ridiculously lucky or already wealthy...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2011
And the way to counter this is to keep the wealth disparity as small as possible.

You will have to do this at the point of a gun and thereby inhibit innovation that results in economic growth.
Greed and envy are mortal sins. But that's why SH is an atheist so he has no guilt using force to keep people down and poor.

Yes, for other billionaires. When's your trip on the shuttle?

Only the rich could afford to fly in the 30s. Only the rich could afford to sail in comfort 100 years ago.
Only the rich could afford flat screen TVs or a PC when they were first launched.
Only the rich had flush toilets 100 years ago.
You need to see someone about your envy.
FrankHerbert
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2011
I'm astounded. I just got done criticizing Q_C for being incredibly racist in another discussion, yet he seems to be right here. Admittedly I don't have the stomach to read all of his responses but the first few were spot on. Q_C seriously, look up the World Bank and IMF with regards to the systematic pillage of third world countries. You seem smart enough to get this. I'm just assuming you haven't been exposed to it.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2011
QC, you have to recognize, Mr. Swenson is in the generation of people in America who watched commercials and PSAs about the Virtues of Capitalism, and were propagandized whole cloth by various rich families decades ago. He just doesn't know any better. The quality of life was better back then, and many were misled to believe it was because of businesses.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2011
People have zero opporutnities in capitalism unless they are ridiculously lucky or ready wealthy...

Sam Walton started working at JC Penney.
"Amancio Ortega

Net worth: $20.2 billion

Son of a railway worker Ortega apparently got started as a clerk in a shirt store. With $25 and help from his then wife Rosalia Mera, now also a billionaire, he began making gowns in his living room."
"Kirk Kerkorian

Net worth: $16 billion

Son of Armenian immigrants, he dropped out of school in the eighth grade and took up boxing."
"Oprah Winfrey

Net worth: $2.5 billion

Born in rural Mississippi to a poor unwed teenaged mother,"
http://www.smartm...res.aspx
Andrew Carnegie immigrated to the US and worked in a bobbin factory.
Henry Ford was raised on a farm and started work as an apprentice machinist.

Quantum_Conundrum
3 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2011
You will have to do this at the point of a gun and thereby inhibit innovation that results in economic growth.


No, no, no.

It's called working together to meet everyone's individual and collective needs, which is what Jesus, Peter and Paul taught in the Bible also, instead of the "might makes right" mentality of the capitalist.

Only the rich could afford to fly in the 30s. Only the rich could afford to sail in comfort 100 years ago.
Only the rich could afford flat screen TVs or a PC when they were first launched.
Only the rich had flush toilets 100 years ago.


You realize the energy costs of space flight mean that no matter what form of government or currency we use in the future, it is HIGHLY unlikely that anyone other than a VERY select few will ever actually fly in a space craft. Your ignorance is astounding. It costs something like $12,000 per pound payload to go to space, so a 180lbs person would need $2.2 million per trip...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2011
QC, you have to recognize, Mr. Swenson is in the generation of people in America who watched commercials and PSAs about the Virtues of Capitalism, and were propagandized whole cloth by various rich families decades ago. He just doesn't know any better. The quality of life was better back then, and many were misled to believe it was because of businesses.

Bottom line: Socialism, what SH, QC and others advocate requires govt force to take from those who produce and redistribute to those who won't produce. That is called theft, period. Bastiat called it right 150 years ago.
Socialists like SH and QC don't like being associated with murdering socialist tyrants, like Stalin or Pol Pot, but that is the inevitable result of the path they pursue if they are serious about its implementation.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2011
Hey ryggy:

You realize how many people make gowns in their living rooms, even gowns that are just as good, and never do anything better than live day to day?

Oprah Winfrey is a prime example of exactly what is WRONG in this country, because she basicly became a billionaire by capitalizing gossip.

And let's quote a few more dumbass examples from when the government was still giving away land to anyone who asked for it, and you could live on a dollar for a month.

Hey, Jim Walter homes was started with a used truck and $400 worth of lumber. GREAT. Try that today and see what you get!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2011
It's called working together to meet everyone's individual and collective needs, which is what Jesus, Peter and Paul taught in the Bible also, instead of the "might makes right" mentality of the capitalist.

Then you don't need a govt to force people to do this.
But that is NOT what you advocated earlier:
"What needs to be done is to shorten the work week MANDATORILY".
Who is going to manditorily shorten the work week?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2011
Hey ryggy:

You realize how many people make gowns in their living rooms, even gowns that are just as good, and never do anything better than live day to day?

Oprah Winfrey is a prime example of exactly what is WRONG in this country, because she basicly became a billionaire by capitalizing gossip.

And let's quote a few more dumbass examples from when the government was still giving away land to anyone who asked for it, and you could live on a dollar for a month.

Hey, Jim Walter homes was started with a used truck and $400 worth of lumber. GREAT. Try that today and see what you get!

If it so easy to be a billionaire, do it. What's stopping you?
Bottom line is no one wants to buy what you are selling and you want to force people to buy what you sell.
That's now how capitalism works. Capitalists identify a consumer need and seek to satisfy that need by PERSUADING people to buy their product.
Quantum_Conundrum
3 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2011
Bottom line: Socialism, what SH, QC and others advocate requires govt force to take from those who produce and redistribute to those who won't produce.


Whatever, you're just a liar, 'cuz i guess none of those billionaire's employees who make at or below mean "produce" anything at all, obviously.

That is called theft, period.

No, it's called fairness.

Socialists like SH and QC don't like being associated with murdering socialist tyrants, like Stalin or Pol Pot, but that is the inevitable result of the path they pursue if they are serious about its implementation.


I guess you aren't familliar with unregulated capitalism, particularly in textiles, coal, oil, and steel industries, whereby your hero billionaires actually murdered anyone who asked for a raise. You should take at least a 7th grade American history lesson on these topics before you bother discussing them.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (12) Apr 03, 2011
It's called working together to meet everyone's individual and collective needs, which is what Jesus, Peter and Paul taught in the Bible also, instead of the "might makes right" mentality of the capitalist.

Then you don't need a govt to force people to do this.
But that is NOT what you advocated earlier:
"What needs to be done is to shorten the work week MANDATORILY".
Who is going to manditorily shorten the work week?


Actually you do need a government to enforce this and you're a moron for not realizing it. Jesus would hate you if he existed.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2011
I guess you aren't familliar with unregulated capitalism, particularly in textiles, coal, oil, and steel industries, whereby your hero billionaires actually murdered anyone who asked for a raise. You should take at least a 7th grade American history lesson on these topics before you bother discussing them.

I guess you are not familiar with a govt that protects private property rights. I am not surprised because that is the kind of govt you desire. A govt that legalizes plunder.

http://www.fee.or..._Law.pdf

FrankHerbert
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 03, 2011
We do have a government that legalizes plunder. You like that kind of plunder so you don't refer to it as such.

I'm all for stealing from the rich because no rich person ever earned his fortune. Never. Not once.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2011
QC, if you have the courage of your convictions I am sure you can find a commune or a monastery to join. Then you can all be equal.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2011
"political equality means that the individuals right to life, liberty and property is respected and that government abstains from conferring any special advantage or inflicting any special harm upon one individual (or group) in distinction to another. Clearly, political equality is at best only approximated and never exists completely. "
"2. Economic equality means in essence that people have the same income or total wealth.

3. Social equality generally means either (a) equality of social status, (b) equality of opportunity, or (c) equality of treatment. Social equality is also increasingly coming to mean (d) equality of achievement. "
"A little reflection will quickly demonstrate that economic and social equality can only be achieved at the expense of political equality."
http://www.thefre...quality/

QC and SH support violating political equality.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2011
Ryggesogn2 supports the systematic genocide of poor people. Damn which is worse?
Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2011
Damn which is worse?
The systemic destruction of wealth.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (12) Apr 03, 2011
Lil' Douggie the septic tank (full of poo) comes to give us his talking points!
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2011
Mr. Swenson, you pound on Bastiat, but his views would be akin to mine, not yours.

If socialists mean that under extraordinary circumstances, for urgent cases, the State should set aside some resources to assist certain unfortunate people, to help them adjust to changing conditions, we will, of course, agree.
- Frederic Bastiat, Justice and fraternity, in Journal des Economistes, 15 June 1848, page 313
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2011
Mr. Swenson, you pound on Bastiat, but his views would be akin to mine, not yours.

If socialists mean that under extraordinary circumstances, for urgent cases, the State should set aside some resources to assist certain unfortunate people, to help them adjust to changing conditions, we will, of course, agree.
- Frederic Bastiat, Justice and fraternity, in Journal des Economistes, 15 June 1848, page 313

Define 'urgent'. I suggest you differ greatly with Bastiat on that definition.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2011
Define 'urgent'. I suggest you differ greatly with Bastiat on that definition.
I'd define it as any circumstance in which life is in jeopardy.
Jimee
5 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2011
It is surprising to hear QC or any religious zealot talking seriously about Jesus' (if he existed) teachings and standing up for common people. Capitalism is the right to poison as many and as much as necessary in order to me to make a huge fortune.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2011
Capitalism is the right to poison as many and as much as necessary in order to me to make a huge fortune.

No, it is not.
Socialism allows this.
Moebius
1 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2011
This is BS. We have all the clean energy we could ever use under our feet but no one is interested in even TRYING to develop it. Just saw a show on Tesla and he said it back then, thermo-energy from the earth's heat underground would provide us with all the clean energy we could possibly use forever. If we had a program to develop it like we did to put a man on the moon, we would find a way to develop it, where there's the will we find a way. But we won't because it would put all the businesses that produce dirty energy now OUT of business. Coal, oil and nuclear would be dead if we developed it, even the clean energies like wind and solar would die. Our sick business ethics will prevent us from doing this. Companies must grow. Profits must grow. Big companies and corporations can't be allowed to fail. Capitalism is a sickness and it's terminal.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2011
This is BS. We have all the clean energy we could ever use under our feet but no one is interested in even TRYING to develop it. Just saw a show on Tesla and he said it back then, thermo-energy from the earth's heat underground would provide us with all the clean energy we could possibly use forever. If we had a program to develop it like we did to put a man on the moon, we would find a way to develop it, where there's the will we find a way. But we won't because it would put all the businesses that produce dirty energy now OUT of business. Coal, oil and nuclear would be dead if we developed it, even the clean energies like wind and solar would die. Our sick business ethics will prevent us from doing this. Companies must grow. Profits must grow. Big companies and corporations can't be allowed to fail. Capitalism is a sickness and it's terminal.

Do it if it so easy.
FrankHerbert
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2011
Dolor (Latin for pain) isn't the root of the word dollar, douggie. Holla to your dictionary!