Almost 50 Years Of Dealing With The Energy Crisis

[Ana the Ist]

citation on the cell phones would be appreciated and what do you have against working to solve the problem even if it means attempting to change our economy?

What do you mean "change the economy"?

How well do you understand economics?

People talk about capitalism like it's a choice. It's not a choice. It's a word a guy used to describe the way economics worked, how to make it work better, and thereby make a nation wealthy.

The guy they attribute the word capitalism to (the father of capitalism) is also frequently referred to as the father of modern economics. The stuff he figured out isn't a matter of choice. It's a matter of fact. Economics can change, but you don't choose them...you either understand them or don't.

Plenty of people smarter than both you and me don't understand this. They think you can jusr dream up a way things work economically and make it happen. That fails every time. The only real socialist nations that I can think of is either crumbling into poverty or N Korea. Everything else is either some variation of capitalism, or a psuedo agrarian dictatorship with capitalist features....currently being economically crushed by capitalism.

If you have a "option" that actually works?!? Then you're not only the most brilliant economist in over 200 years....but we should immediately put you in charge of everything.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Is anyone here old enough to remember Hungry Hungry Hippos? It's a child's game. Look it up.

That's the best case scenario I can imagine for the near future. Global geopolitics isn't whatever you think it is. It's anarchy. There's no real rules because there's no real enforcement. The US strategy has changed depending upon the region, but it's almost always for the benefit of the US. For example, our middle east strategy looks like this....

Topple or destabilize or isolate anyone who isn't willing to sell the US oil for far cheaper than they should. That's what we've been doing. That's the game. We've been doing it well. Is it awful, sure. Is it immoral? I bet many people think so. Does it cause a lot of suffering? Yup.

Those are dumb questions though....the question you should ask is what this nation would look like if gasoline was 20$ a gallon?

Yeah...we aren't going to be ok with that. It would be extremely difficult, possibly impossible, for our leaders to be protected from the inevitable violence of 350 million armed civilians.

So it's gonna turn into Hungry Hungry Hippos. Think of the US, China, Russia, and perhaps some Euro-Australian or Japan-S Korean alliance. We won't be fighting each other, but we won't exactly be cooperating. Instead, we will be picking off weaker targets and grabbing up whatever resources of value they have. China has already started buying Africa....Russia is currently gobbling up Ukraine.

So your answer is "… The next stop is Vietnam,
And its 5, 6,7 open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
WHOOPEE we're all gonna die…"

Guess what, were still here and worrying about $20 gallon gas right now is not going to solve current problems or likely any future ones as well.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here's some stats about smartphones...not the same one I mentioned but that's not important. It's not small.

The carbon footprint of your phone – and how you can reduce it

So yeah...is anyone getting the picture? We aren't solving this.

If you think "the younger generation" is going to "do better" because they tweet about "caring for the environment"....you're wrong. They're clueless. Every product has a hidden cost. Sustainable is a lie just like cap and trade and recycling. It's just told to you so you don't panic.

I've seen sustainable living. I'm from Ohio, I've been to Amish country. That's about as close to sustainable as it gets.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So your answer is "… The next stop is Vietnam,

Does Vietnam have something valuable?

I was thinking Mexico. Giant lithium deposit discovered there recently. We can probably goad the cartels into making some mistake, roll in there on some trumped up pretext, and grab a 51st state. That's a smart move.

And its 5, 6,7 open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
WHOOPEE we're all gonna die…"

I don't know what this means.

How accurate of a picture do you want me to paint? Have you noticed money corrupting all our institutions? Have you noticed people fleeing equatorial nations by the millions?

Tell you what....vote Ana the Ist dictator for life in 2024, I'll dissolve the Constitution, seize control of the media, tuck you into bed and tell you everything is going to be ok.

Guess what, were still here and worrying about $20 gallon gas right now is not going to solve current problems or likely any future ones as well.

Yeah ok...what do you think happens on the international political stage? Yes, deals are made...sometimes they're even kept.

Mostly it's a game of position. It's a game of "how much can we get away with without any repercussions". We don't support Israel because we love the Israelis. We support them because they provide a fantastic strategic advantage. China doesn't prop up N Korea because they enjoy having a massive open air prison of human suffering next door....they see the advantage of having a rabid dog willing to threaten any opposition who gets too close.

Every single person in this nation participates in an economic system that frequently starts with human suffering elsewhere. We all support it, and many of us know about it, nobody stops participating.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Here's some stats about smartphones...not the same one I mentioned but that's not important. It's not small.

The carbon footprint of your phone – and how you can reduce it

So yeah...is anyone getting the picture? We aren't solving this.

If you think "the younger generation" is going to "do better" because they tweet about "caring for the environment"....you're wrong. They're clueless. Every product has a hidden cost. Sustainable is a lie just like cap and trade and recycling. It's just told to you so you don't panic.

I've seen sustainable living. I'm from Ohio, I've been to Amish country. That's about as close to sustainable as it gets.

Just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean the younger generation, or even older generations doesn't get it. from your link, a fancy I phone with a 2 year life has a carbon footprint equal to 9 gallons of petrol, but I have used my smartphone as a book probably a thousand times (I read a lot) instead of driving to the library or bookstore at ~ 1/2 gallon each. Not to mention my phone is 5 yrs old.
Your complaints about the situation are not contributing to a solution.

ETA, since someone will complain, 5 yrs at a book every day or 2 is about what i read.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just because you don't believe it,

Just because I don't believe "what"?

What do you think I don't believe?

doesn't mean the younger generation, or even older generations doesn't get it.

The comments in this thread prove you don't get it.

from your link, a fancy I phone with a 2 year life has a carbon footprint equal to 9 gallons of petrol, but I have used my smartphone as a book probably a thousand times (I read a lot) instead of driving to the library or bookstore at ~ 1/2 gallon each. Not to mention my phone is 5 yrs old.
Your complaints about the situation are not contributing to a solution.

A solution? Everything in this world is finite.

The solution to the smartphone contributions to the overall carbon footprint is this...

No more smartphones for anyone.

That's it. That's the only solution.

ETA, since someone will complain, 5 yrs at a book every day or 2 is about what i read.

I find that interesting.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Does Vietnam have something valuable?

I was thinking Mexico. Giant lithium deposit discovered there recently. We can probably goad the cartels into making some mistake, roll in there on some trumped up pretext, and grab a 51st state. That's a smart move.



I don't know what this means.

How accurate of a picture do you want me to paint? Have you noticed money corrupting all our institutions? Have you noticed people fleeing equatorial nations by the millions?

Tell you what....vote Ana the Ist dictator for life in 2024, I'll dissolve the Constitution, seize control of the media, tuck you into bed and tell you everything is going to be ok.



Yeah ok...what do you think happens on the international political stage? Yes, deals are made...sometimes they're even kept.

Mostly it's a game of position. It's a game of "how much can we get away with without any repercussions". We don't support Israel because we love the Israelis. We support them because they provide a fantastic strategic advantage. China doesn't prop up N Korea because they enjoy having a massive open air prison of human suffering next door....they see the advantage of having a rabid dog willing to threaten any opposition who gets too close.

Every single person in this nation participates in an economic system that frequently starts with human suffering elsewhere. We all support it, and many of us know about it, nobody stops participating.

the Vietnam situation was ended by people dealing in the then present with whatever understanding at the time. Human society is sloppy but complaining about that sloppiness does not move it forward.

 

[Ana the Ist]

the Vietnam situation was ended by people dealing in the then present with whatever understanding at the time. Human society is sloppy but complaining about that sloppiness does not move it forward.

Why do you think Vietnam happened?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Why do you think Vietnam happened?

Misguided responses to colonialism and communism that we are still dealing with.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Misguided responses to colonialism

I sincerely doubt you really understand colonialism.

If you think you do though, you can demonstrate it by explaining the main difference between it and every other time any group of people, nation, or "empire" expanded their borders into some other occupied land.

and communism that we are still dealing with.

Was it misguided? I don't think they knew what we know now. Back then...socialism seemed viable. It's atrocities and failures were well hidden. It must have seemed quite dangerous to anyone who genuinely understood the problem.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

I sincerely doubt you really understand colonialism.

If you think you do though, you can demonstrate it by explaining the main difference between it and every other time any group of people, nation, or "empire" expanded their borders into some other occupied land.




Was it misguided? I don't think they knew what we know now. Back then...socialism seemed viable. It's atrocities and failures were well hidden. It must have seemed quite dangerous to anyone who genuinely understood the problem.

Well you already said it yourself, what we understood then is not what we understand now. Arguing that they were wrong does little to move us forward.

 

[mark46]

I sincerely doubt you really understand colonialism.

If you think you do though, you can demonstrate it by explaining the main difference between it and every other time any group of people, nation, or "empire" expanded their borders into some other occupied land.




Was it misguided? I don't think they knew what we know now. Back then...socialism seemed viable. It's atrocities and failures were well hidden. It must have seemed quite dangerous to anyone who genuinely understood the problem.

1) Ho Chi Minh was the George Washington of the Vietnam. He fought off the Japanese.

2) How is anything but colonialism when powers from thousands of miles away take possession of countries.

3) Vietnam signed an agreement with the West, with guaranteed elections. The West reneged.

4) As was the case with Castro, Ho Chi Minh had no other choice, after the West kept installing puppet dictatorships.

5) What WE didn't understand back then was how difficult it is for Western industrial countries to fight a guerilla war against folks in their own country. Of course, Russia should have learned that lesson in Chechnya and in Afghanistan.

 

[Opdrey]

Why do you think Vietnam happened?

Because America got hung up on their collective fear of Communism coming out of the 1950's bolstered by the "Domino Theory" and serious concern over Communist China. Also we were friends with the French, so there's that as well.

Nowadays the key thing Vietnam probably has that would interest America is cheaper labor. That's predominantly why we pay attention to Southeast Asia these days. It's not quite the same as going in and taking over a country for its resources but it's not unlike it either. We just let them run themselves now however they want as long as the labor cost is low.

That's also why we love China! Sure we talk a big game about China being a big scary enemy but they make the stuff we like. Only problem is that now China is getting to expensive so we're exploring other places like Indonesia to see if we can get cheaper labor (ie lower cost human resources).

 

[Ana the Ist]

1) Ho Chi Minh was the George Washington of the Vietnam. He fought off the Japanese.

That's a hot take. I'd like to say I disagree or agree, but honestly, I don't know much about Ho Chi Minh. I know he was educated in Europe, where he became acquainted with Marxism, and used it to foment revolution.

It's entirely possible that he thought his intentions were pure as the driven snow. Like I said before, back then socialism looked like a viable option.

2) How is anything but colonialism when powers from thousands of miles away take possession of countries.

What possible difference are we talking about when we talk about conquest?

Did the Mughal Empire conquer people who weren't Mughals and take over their land? How about the Mongols? How about the Ottomans? How about the Egyptians? The Egyptians did it so long ago, the only reason we know they did it, is because they bothered to write it down. The Romans? You betcha. There's more than I can name.

Is it different because boats were used instead of just walking there? Not really....not at all.

3) Vietnam signed an agreement with the West, with guaranteed elections. The West reneged.

Elections? In a communist state?

4) As was the case with Castro, Ho Chi Minh had no other choice, after the West kept installing puppet dictatorships.

I guess he never heard of peaceful protest.

5) What WE didn't understand back then was how difficult it is for Western industrial countries to fight a guerilla war against folks in their own country. Of course, Russia should have learned that lesson in Chechnya and in Afghanistan.

Actually, what we didn't realize then....and what I doubt most people realize now....is how wars are won.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Because America got hung up on their collective fear of Communism coming out of the 1950's bolstered by the "Domino Theory" and serious concern over Communist China. Also we were friends with the French, so there's that as well.

You're looking at it backwards. You have knowledge they didn't. If you're watching peaceful nations fall to despotic communist dictators....it might be entirely reasonable to be concerned.

Do you also think Korea was a bad idea?

Nowadays the key thing Vietnam probably has that would interest America is cheaper labor. That's predominantly why we pay attention to Southeast Asia these days. It's not quite the same as going in and taking over a country for its resources but it's not unlike it either. We just let them run themselves now however they want as long as the labor cost is low.

Odd how cheap that labor is in communist dictatorships.

That's also why we love China! Sure we talk a big game about China being a big scary enemy but they make the stuff we like. Only problem is that now China is getting to expensive so we're exploring other places like Indonesia to see if we can get cheaper labor (ie lower cost human resources).

It's a problem.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

That's a hot take. I'd like to say I disagree or agree, but honestly, I don't know much about Ho Chi Minh. I know he was educated in Europe, where he became acquainted with Marxism, and used it to foment revolution.

It's entirely possible that he thought his intentions were pure as the driven snow. Like I said before, back then socialism looked like a viable option.



What possible difference are we talking about when we talk about conquest?

Did the Mughal Empire conquer people who weren't Mughals and take over their land? How about the Mongols? How about the Ottomans? How about the Egyptians? The Egyptians did it so long ago, the only reason we know they did it, is because they bothered to write it down. The Romans? You betcha. There's more than I can name.

Is it different because boats were used instead of just walking there? Not really....not at all.


Elections? In a communist state?



I guess he never heard of peaceful protest.



Actually, what we didn't realize then....and what I doubt most people realize now....is how wars are won.

So who won the war in Vietnam and how and why in your understanding.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well you already said it yourself, what we understood then is not what we understand now. Arguing that they were wrong does little to move us forward.

What's this "we" stuff? Are you looking around and seeing a bunch of understanding?

Every time I'm on here I'm seeing someone who hates socialism and doesn't know what it is. I'm seeing people advocate for socialism and they don't know what it is. I'm seeing people criticize capitalism and they don't know what it is. I'm seeing people praise capitalism and they don't know what it is.

I see on OP, on this very thread, that is relatively happy about seeing a shred of normalcy. It seems like a thing to be glad for.

Instead, it turns into an argument about a group of people who are "too sensitive" about some guy protesting an anthem or flag.

Keep in mind, it's the same group claiming that the words "Let's Go (insert name)" are offensive and disrespectful to the point where they should be banned from this very forum! Let's not even start down the list of completely reasonable statements that send them into a foaming frenzy....like men and women are biologically different. It's the other side that's too sensitive. It's the other side that is authoritarian.

Too sensitive? Authoritarian? Realllllllllyyyyy????

 

[Ana the Ist]

So who won the war in Vietnam and how and why in your understanding.

Uhhh.....clearly the north Vietnamese. Let's not take anything away from them....brilliant strategy. If they didn't realize, openly, that we simply would leave once it got too expensive and went on for too long....then their strategy doesn't make much sense. This is the same strategy that everyone we've fought has adopted since (more or less). Do you understand why it works?

Do you understand how wars are won?

You have to break the enemies will to fight. Every war no matter what side you're on is a calculus of "what will be gained and what is the cost". If you're invading, you need to convince the people you are invading that they will lose everything....everything they have, everything they will ever have, and everyone will likely die. Once they reach that point....it's worth surrendering.

If you're defending....it's much easier now....just keep fighting. You may lose every battle, but keep fighting. As long as they aren't willing to wipe you out completely (and we aren't, thanks to post WW2 Geneva Conventions) eventually, the cost will become too great and the invaders will leave.

Of course, not every nation follows the Geneva conventions. Russia for example, handled the Chechens rather quickly. I doubt that the Ukraine will take too long.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Uhhh.....clearly the north Vietnamese. Let's not take anything away from them....brilliant strategy. If they didn't realize, openly, that we simply would leave once it got too expensive and went on for too long....then their strategy doesn't make much sense. This is the same strategy that everyone we've fought has adopted since (more or less). Do you understand why it works?

Do you understand how wars are won?

You have to break the enemies will to fight. Every war no matter what side you're on is a calculus of "what will be gained and what is the cost". If you're invading, you need to convince the people you are invading that they will lose everything....everything they have, everything they will ever have, and everyone will likely die. Once they reach that point....it's worth surrendering.

If you're defending....it's much easier now....just keep fighting. You may lose every battle, but keep fighting. As long as they aren't willing to wipe you out completely (and we aren't, thanks to post WW2 Geneva Conventions) eventually, the cost will become too great and the invaders will leave.

Of course, not every nation follows the Geneva conventions. Russia for example, handled the Chechens rather quickly. I doubt that the Ukraine will take too long.

My Vietnamese sister in law whose family left in 1975 would probably disagree with you as to the ultimate winners and yeah, we cannot expect Putin to follow convention, but none of this justifies your confidence that you know what will happen, especially since you won't even tell us what you predict. All I see is a Calamity Annie.
If you have anything positive to say, let's discuss that.

 

[mark46]

The US agreed to elections. When the time was close, and it was clear that H CHi Minh would win, the US refused to allow elections.

You disagree with the US signing a treaty to support elections. That's fine. I disagree with the US tearing up a treaty and re-starting a war with the Vietnese that the French had fought for many years.

You are correct that you don't know much about Ho Chi Minh. To many in the world, standing up to Japan meant something, and standing up to foreign armies meant something, and standing up to foreign installed dictators meant something.
=========================
The reality is that the US, France and the UK divided the world up, with France getting Vietnam. They also chose to fight a long cold war with the Soviet Union. For many decades, nothing matters in world diplomacy other than whether one favored Russia or the West.

That's a hot take. I'd like to say I disagree or agree, but honestly, I don't know much about Ho Chi Minh. I know he was educated in Europe, where he became acquainted with Marxism, and used it to foment revolution.

It's entirely possible that he thought his intentions were pure as the driven snow. Like I said before, back then socialism looked like a viable option.



What possible difference are we talking about when we talk about conquest?

Did the Mughal Empire conquer people who weren't Mughals and take over their land? How about the Mongols? How about the Ottomans? How about the Egyptians? The Egyptians did it so long ago, the only reason we know they did it, is because they bothered to write it down. The Romans? You betcha. There's more than I can name.

Is it different because boats were used instead of just walking there? Not really....not at all.



Elections? In a communist state?



I guess he never heard of peaceful protest.



Actually, what we didn't realize then....and what I doubt most people realize now....is how wars are won.