My very first thread here! What up peeps?

I am a registered Republican and politically I’m somewhere between moderate and conservative. I’m really not that gang busters about global warming but I think the technology of the GM-Volt is WAY over due for a host of other reasons including the benefit to the US economy and our indirect support for the terrorists who want us dead under the present system.

Foundationally I think its important to understand the conservative mind-set. Number one trying to convince a conservative that this type of technology is important because is global warming is a total waste of time. Most conservatives think global warming is a complete fabrication motivated by American ideological socialists hell bent on shutting down American industry as their true motive. They think that the evangelists of environmentalism are complete hypocrites who create more green-house gases in a year that most of us will create in our entire lives. The Kyoto Accords are unfairly biased to ruin the US economy while giving China and India a free ride who collectively create more green-house emissions than the US.

If you’re interested in reaching conservatives you have to focus on the common ground.

• Energy Independence and freedom from the control Middle Eastern dictators have over the US economy.
• An end to our support for the Al Qaeda trickle-down economy each time well fill-up.
• Tracing the history of the war on terror to our entanglement in Middle East affairs due to our dependency on their oil.
• The harm done to our economy by forking over such a huge portion of our GNP to the Middle East.
• All drilling ANWR and the Florida Gulf Coast will do is keep alive the global market for petroleum based fuel and indirectly benefit the terrorists.
• Alternatively fueled vehicles like the GM-Volt will be affordable if offered at the same mass production levels as the 100 year old technology of the internal combustion engine.
• The same technology soon to be offered in the GM-Volt can and will be incorporated into other models including the large cars we love to drive, SUVs and crossovers.
• Electric cars will not shut down the power grid because most people will be recharging their cars when demand is presently at its lowest, 11pm to 6am. In the meantime as more electric cars replace gasoline cars, we can grow power grid with home electricity production (solar and wind) and new nuclear power plants.
• Gas prices are NOT going to improve but its only .60 cents a gallon equivalent in a higher power bill if you join the Volt nation.
• Because of the gas tank on rare occasions that you want to go on a road trip longer than 50 miles, no problem.
• Conservatives hate taxes. Explain that since Middle Eastern dictatorships do not levy taxes on their citizens and raise the money needed to operate their governments from oil revenue WE are in essence paying the taxes of not on our own government, but the governments of Middle Eastern dictatorships. As thanks for paying THEIR taxes for them the people of these countries hate our guts and we had a 300% tax increase in the last 6 years.

• Tracing the history of the war on terror to our entanglement in Middle East affairs due to our dependency on their oil.

Our support of Israel will keep the US in the middle-east even if we stop using all petroleum.


• Electric cars will not shut down the power grid because most people will be recharging their cars when demand is presently at its lowest, 11pm to 6am. In the meantime as more electric cars replace gasoline cars, we can grow power grid with home electricity production (solar and wind) and new nuclear power plants.

The best part about these range extended electric vehicles is that consumers will slowly ramp the adoption of EV's in a way that our electrical grids have time to adjust to the higher demand, at whatever time of day it comes. Whatever the true impact, utilities will have plenty of time to adapt.

Welcome Roger!

I largely agree with your points for the most part. However, I think you'll find that once most conservatives discover the Volt they don't need a lot of convincing. They naturally gravitate towards it on it's own merits. You'll find there are many active conservatives and right leaning moderates here on the forum.

Is there anything we can do to speed up its production and encourage GM to produce more or similar cars in different models (higher supply will make them less expensive)? I don't see any reduction of gas prices ever and anticipate people will be standing in line for these cars once produced. I was just thinking if we could get environmentalists and conservatives to unite behind this technology, albeit for different reasons, we can bring America into the 21st century an force the Middle Eastern economy into surviving on camel dairy exports.

I'm right there with you Roger on every point. This is indeed common ground. I don't think anyone has a monoply on common sense.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats need pursuading. Your points are compelling.

As far as getting the Volt cheaper and faster,,, I'm afraid GM is counting on a handout from uncle. That said, some of it will go to the early adopters.

After that, we run out of ability to predict the next big thing.

I've debated about jumping into this discussion and finally couldn't resist because I'm curious to know what kind of response comes back.

Forget global warming. It seems to me that a conservative person would not want to knowingly carry out an experiment on the earth. The global concentration of CO2 is rising faster than at any other time in history back hundreds of thousands of years due to the fact that human activity is releasing carbon over decades that was stored over millions of years. Doing this experiment is extremely risky. One can argue that climate scientists really don't know what will happen with a level of certainty that one can believe. To me that makes it even more scary to do this experiment.

What if the climate scientists were saying that it would be great to double or triple the CO2 concentration? Would conservatives agree with that because it supports the status quo of a fossil-fuel based energy infrastructure? Either way, it is definitely an experiment.

Our current coarse is very risky and we have the technology to take a lower risk path. Why not take it?

Global experiment argument is little different from global warming argument, and conservatives will tune you out immediately. CO2 is a tiny component of Earth's atmosphere, so 2X or 3X increase is still tiny.

You can ONLY make security and economic arguments to a conservative, and even then, you better offer a feasible alternative.

Global experiment argument is little different from global warming argument, and conservatives will tune you out immediately. CO2 is a tiny component of Earth's atmosphere, so 2X or 3X increase is still tiny.

You can ONLY make security and economic arguments to a conservative, and even then, you better offer a feasible alternative.

Just because something is in small concentrations doesn't make it benign. For example, small concentrations of some chemicals in water may not harm you, but double or triple the concentrations can, especially over long periods of time. Mercury is a decent example of that.

There is a significant difference between the global warming argument and the global experiment argument. You can't deny the fact that the experiment is being done, but you can argue about the outcome. It's an enormous gamble, that's for sure.

I just don't like scare tactics, such as those used by Gore. I think logical arguments always work better in the end. Go ahead, call me naive. I don't mind.

Global experiment argument is little different from global warming argument, and conservatives will tune you out immediately.....

You can ONLY make security and economic arguments to a conservative, and even then, you better offer a feasible alternative.


I agree. Been there, done that. I spend a lot of my free time on boards trying to persuade conservatives to see the value of alternative energy and they simply do not care an iota about the environmental arguments and think its all non-sense.

Secondly there is an inherent component to conservatives, which is being head over heels madly in love with the status quo and very reluctant to embrace anything unfamiliar and new.

Thirdly, they trust that the energy corporations (who have a vested interest in the status quo) will bring all of what's needed to us and trust and the free market system will automatically work everything out. Then you have to remind them that there's nothing free market about opec.

What they care about are the economics, national security and it would help if you work in some patriotism. Too much time is being wasted trying to win arguments when the goal should be cooperation toward a common goal even if there are different motives on which we honestly are likely to never agree. Its time to retire the ICE whether you think it should be for ecological reasons, national security reasons, economic reasons, technological progress reasons or a combination of these.

Other points:

• Don’t get bogged down in any “all or nothing” proposition. We have to start somewhere and I think private passenger cars, SUVs, crossovers, trucks and vans should be the focus. Leave commercial transportation, aviation and military energy needs off the table. Once successes are proven, the others will follow.

• You have to remind people that like other new innovations, they develop faster after they’re on the market so “waiting for the technology to be perfected” is often a counter productive delay. I like using the evolution of the cell phone as a model.

I agree. Been there, done that. I spend a lot of my free time on boards trying to persuade conservatives to see the value of alternative energy and they simply do not care an iota about the environmental arguments and think its all non-sense.

That is wise, perhaps you can run for Sen. Kennedy's now vacant seat.


Secondly there is an inherent component to conservatives, which is being head over heels madly in love with the status quo and very reluctant to embrace anything unfamiliar and new.

That is wrong. You are letting your liberal bias color / interpret behaviors that are driven by other motivators. Conservatives are happy to abandon the status quo, as long as you provide an alternative that is cheaper than the status quo. In a conservative's eyes, liberals love to punish people with additional costs / poorer performance, most notably in punishment cars that are small, uncomfortable and unsafe.


Thirdly, they trust that the energy corporations (who have a vested interest in the status quo) will bring all of what's needed to us and trust and the free market system will automatically work everything out. Then you have to remind them that there's nothing free market about opec.

Again, that is wrong. Conservatives believe that competition in a free market environment will drive companies to "better" practices. It should have been obvious to any free market capitalist that it would be companies like Tesla Motors, Fisker Automotive and Aptera that would spur the major automakers into offering similar products - not government mandates.


What they care about are the economics, national security and it would help if you work in some patriotism. Too much time is being wasted trying to win arguments when the goal should be cooperation toward a common goal even if there are different motives on which we honestly are likely to never agree. Its time to retire the ICE whether you think it should be for ecological reasons, national security reasons, economic reasons, technological progress reasons or a combination of these.

I whole-heartedly agree with your strategy of collaborating with the opposition to take modest steps in the right direction - again, perhaps you can run for Sen. Kennedy's empty seat.


Other points:

• Don’t get bogged down in any “all or nothing” proposition. We have to start somewhere and I think private passenger cars, SUVs, crossovers, trucks and vans should be the focus. Leave commercial transportation, aviation and military energy needs off the table. Once successes are proven, the others will follow.

Actually, it is more likely that municipalities would be first to adopt "clean energy" solutions, so a better strategy is to push on all fronts.


• You have to remind people that like other new innovations, they develop faster after they’re on the market so “waiting for the technology to be perfected” is often a counter productive delay. I like using the evolution of the cell phone as a model.

I nearly teared up reading this one. Having worked in a few high tech start-ups, I was unable to get this point across, to the demise of the investors.

I compare it to the old fable of making stone soup. People were starving, so one townsman offered to make stone soup. He went to the center of the town square, and said: "If only I had a pot to make it.", so one townsman stepped forward offering his pot. The man then said: "If only I had some water to fill this pot.", so a townswoman stepped forward offering some of her water. The man then said: "If only I had some kindly to boil this water.", so a townsman stepped forward with some of his wood. The man then place a smooth riverstone in the boiling water, tasted it, and said: "This is good, but it would be better if I had some carrots." ....

... and so on, until the whole town of starving people enjoyed a meal of stone soup.

As these E-REV's hit the streets, many vendors are going to step forward, offering one piece of the ultimate solution, until we have clean vehicles that all can afford.

That is wise, perhaps you can run for Sen. Kennedy's now vacant seat.



That is wrong. You are letting your liberal bias color / interpret behaviors that are driven by other motivators. Conservatives are happy to abandon the status quo, as long as you provide an alternative that is cheaper than the status quo. In a conservative's eyes, liberals love to punish people with additional costs / poorer performance, most notably in punishment cars that are small, uncomfortable and unsafe.



Again, that is wrong. Conservatives believe that competition in a free market environment will drive companies to "better" practices. It should have been obvious to any free market capitalist that it would be companies like Tesla Motors, Fisker Automotive and Aptera that would spur the major automakers into offering similar products - not government mandates.



I whole-heartedly agree with your strategy of collaborating with the opposition to take modest steps in the right direction - again, perhaps you can run for Sen. Kennedy's empty seat.



Actually, it is more likely that municipalities would be first to adopt "clean energy" solutions, so a better strategy is to push on all fronts.



I nearly teared up reading this one. Having worked in a few high tech start-ups, I was unable to get this point across, to the demise of the investors.

I compare it to the old fable of making stone soup. People were starving, so one townsman offered to make stone soup. He went to the center of the town square, and said: "If only I had a pot to make it.", so one townsman stepped forward offering his pot. The man then said: "If only I had some water to fill this pot.", so a townswoman stepped forward offering some of her water. The man then said: "If only I had some kindly to boil this water.", so a townsman stepped forward with some of his wood. The man then place a smooth riverstone in the boiling water, tasted it, and said: "This is good, but it would be better if I had some carrots." ....

... and so on, until the whole town of starving people enjoyed a meal of stone soup.

As these E-REV's hit the streets, many vendors are going to step forward, offering one piece of the ultimate solution, until we have clean vehicles that all can afford.

Excellent reply. I just have been so frustrated in trying to get conservatives (and I consider myself one) excited about alternative energy and running into brick walls despite offering all kinds of supporting evidence that we can do this now. They just don't care, at least until now that gas is expected to hit $8.00 a gallon in a few years. I also understand you have to be patient. It takes a while for new ideas to sink in especially if people have heard little about it. I just keep bringing it up from different angles whenever I can but right now.

I’m getting a lot of ANWR is the solution arguments, something I do not agree with. If I had my way:

• In 3 years ICE cars would be illegal to manufacture or import into the US unless for law enforcement, emergency response vehicles, commercial vehicles or military.

• In 3 years all newly constructed homes and reproofing projects must be built with either solar electric or wind turbine generators. Yes, they would cost more up front but the costs would cancel out or even make a profit for the home owner considering little to no electric bill or selling power back to the power grid.

I’m not a liberal and I’m not an environmentalist per se. I’m just an American who thinks there is technology stagnation going on, not by the car companies but by big oil and in league with our decades of foreign policy that have led to terrorism, the resulting War of Terror and Middle Eastern dictator control of the US economy. Like anybody with a brain I like clean air and IF there is global warming happening I think we should err on the side of caution especially knowing we have the ability to convert. As I see it, GM and its GM-Volt technology is saving America. I’m just a citizen educator (with a radio show :)).

I’m getting a lot of ANWR is the solution arguments, something I do not agree with.

ANWR would have been useful, had it happened several years ago, although it would have only staved off the inevitable by a year or two at most. More production just kicks the can down the road - it's time to confront the problem, before it grows worse.


If I had my way:

• In 3 years ICE cars would be illegal to manufacture or import into the US unless for law enforcement, emergency response vehicles, commercial vehicles or military.

That timeline is too soon. You would cause people to keep driving their old polluting Chevy's instead of buying new, more efficient vehicles - that is a step backwards.


• In 3 years all newly constructed homes and reproofing projects must be built with either solar electric or wind turbine generators. Yes, they would cost more up front but the costs would cancel out or even make a profit for the home owner considering little to no electric bill or selling power back to the power grid.

Same as above, people will stay in their old inefficient homes, instead of buying new homes that are too expensive.


I’m not a liberal and I’m not an environmentalist per se. I’m just an American who thinks there is technology stagnation going on, not by the car companies but by big oil and in league with our decades of foreign policy that have led to terrorism, the resulting War of Terror and Middle Eastern dictator control of the US economy. Like anybody with a brain I like clean air and IF there is global warming happening I think we should err on the side of caution especially knowing we have the ability to convert. As I see it, GM and its GM-Volt technology is saving America. I’m just a citizen educator (with a radio show :)).

What you are is a totalitarian, trying to tell people how to live, without giving them feasible choices. The stagnation is more the result of not identifying how to bring new tech to market in ways that people will accept. No need to assign malice where incompetence will do.

You are correct that GM's approach of an E-REV will allow consumers to happily buy an electric vehicle which will reduce their gasoline consumption by 80%, utilizing the existing electric and petroleum infrastuctures without be stranded during a long recharge cycle - too simple to be obvious. The immediate effect of this shift to REEV's will be the reduction in the energy trade deficit, creating a stronger dollar and even stronger economy.

What you are is a totalitarian, trying to tell people how to live, without giving them feasible choices. The stagnation is more the result of not identifying how to bring new tech to market in ways that people will accept. No need to assign malice where incompetence will do.

You are correct that GM's approach of an E-REV will allow consumers to happily buy an electric vehicle which will reduce their gasoline consumption by 80%, utilizing the existing electric and petroleum infrastuctures without be stranded during a long recharge cycle - too simple to be obvious. The immediate effect of this shift to REEV's will be the reduction in the energy trade deficit, creating a stronger dollar and even stronger economy.

What do you consider a reasonable timeline while each day that passes we are indirectly assisting the most dangerous people on earth to develop nukes? IMHO we have the solution in American ingenuity thanks to people like General Motors. Is it a matter of people not being willing to mentally embrace new technology they’re developing THREE YEARS FROM NOW after they're completely fed up with paying through the nose for gas? Understand I'm not saying everybody in America will need to junk their ICE cars in 3 years; they can drive them as long as they want and even buy used ICE cars. That way everything converts in a gradual but steady pace. Rather when people buy new cars they don't have to get on a waiting list because all of the new ones will feature this highly beneficial technology that will save them money and not force them to pay thousands each year to fund people who want to destroy America. I should have also mentioned I would be willing allow ICEs provided they are in cars as a secondary back-up for when batteries die or the owner forgets to recharge the previous night. Does that change your definition of feasible choices or am I still a totalitarian :eek:? Call me naive but I'd be willing to bet you a $5.00 McDonalds gift card that within a year of the GM-Volt hitting the market Americans as well as people around the world will be on waiting lists to get them, demanding that this technology be offered in other models and GM stock going through the roof.

As far as home energy production goes, I'm operating from the position that it is more expensive in up font but there is no net cost to the homeowner whatsoever since the additional cost in their mortgage would be offset by no electrical bill each month and possibly a check from their power company. Everybody is still connected to the grid in case that for whatever reasons their system needs servicing. Right now the government requires new homes to have running water and sewer. Right now the government requires new homes to have electrical wiring installed. In my city all home owners are required to have minimum 3 trees planted in their yards. Nobody ever called any of this totalitarianism. All of this is based on the premise that the technology has to be out there in order to agressively develop, something that we've agreed upon.

What do you consider a reasonable timeline while each day that passes we are indirectly assisting the most dangerous people on earth to develop nukes? IMHO we have the solution in American ingenuity thanks to people like General Motors. Is it a matter of people not being willing to mentally embrace new technology they’re developing THREE YEARS FROM NOW after they're completely fed up with paying through the nose for gas? Understand I'm not saying everybody in America will need to junk their ICE cars in 3 years; they can drive them as long as they want and even buy used ICE cars. That way everything converts in a gradual but steady pace. Rather when people buy new cars they don't have to get on a waiting list because all of the new ones will feature this highly beneficial technology that will save them money and not force them to pay thousands each year to fund people who want to destroy America. I should have also mentioned I would be willing allow ICEs provided they are in cars as a secondary back-up for when batteries die or the owner forgets to recharge the previous night. Does that change your definition of feasible choices or am I still a totalitarian :eek:? Call me naive but I'd be willing to bet you a $5.00 McDonalds gift card that within a year of the GM-Volt hitting the market Americans as well as people around the world will be on waiting lists to get them, demanding that this technology be offered in other models and GM stock going through the roof.

To become energy independent, the 2007 CAFE legislation that increases mileage goes a long way to eliminating the current engine tech that you wish to forbid, and it does it in a way that allows people to feasibly dispose of their old cars and buy new ones. If you make the demands on people too steep, then they keep driving their old cars. You cannot outlaw vehicles that you once had legal to drive (grandfathering), nor can you demand they suddenly become more efficient, because it would be too expensive to convert them - people will throw you out of power.


As far as home energy production goes, I'm operating from the position that it is more expensive in up font but there is no net cost to the homeowner whatsoever since the additional cost in their mortgage would be offset by no electrical bill each month and possibly a check from their power company. Everybody is still connected to the grid in case that for whatever reasons their system needs servicing. Right now the government requires new homes to have running water and sewer. Right now the government requires new homes to have electrical wiring installed. In my city all home owners are required to have minimum 3 trees planted in their yards. Nobody ever called any of this totalitarianism. All of this is based on the premise that the technology has to be out there in order to agressively develop, something that we've agreed upon.

Yes, again, the government set some reasonable standards for home amenities - water / sewage / electricity - but I would call the 3 trees requirement excessive intrusion of one's private property and totalitarianism.

As for progress / development, all an economy really needs is cheap essentials - water, energy, food, housing, transportation, communications, information, security and a monetary system - and people will generate their own wealth from these and other resources. Technology is not nearly as important as providing the aforementioned essentials list above. We've seen that technology was ineffective at advancing transportation for all these years, as the government and enterprise failed to do their job of providing these essential resources. Instead, our government and enterprises squandered time, money and resources on civil rights and affirmative action, leaving us all poorer for it.

I just have been so frustrated in trying to get conservatives (and I consider myself one) excited about alternative energy and running into brick walls despite offering all kinds of supporting evidence that we can do this now.

I’m getting a lot of ANWR is the solution arguments, something I do not agree with. If I had my way:

• In 3 years ICE cars would be illegal to manufacture or import into the US unless for law enforcement, emergency response vehicles, commercial vehicles or military.

• In 3 years all newly constructed homes and reproofing projects must be built with either solar electric or wind turbine generators. Yes, they would cost more up front but the costs would cancel out or even make a profit for the home owner considering little to no electric bill or selling power back to the power grid.

You're not really a conservative if you want the federal government to enact restrictions and bans to solve your perceived crisis. People will get to these technologies on their own without your "Big Brother's" heavy hand. I can hardly believe that in the same post you say, "I consider myself a conservative" and then post on like a environmental Communist. Great plan. Bring our sagging economy to a complete stop in three years.
You say you don't like Al Gore's scare tactics, but your "our petro dollars are helping Bin Laden build a nuke that's pointed right at us" is OK? Talk about scare tactics!

I say take a deep breath and calm down. Change is coming and it doesn't need a heavy handed Government to get here. The people will make up their own minds on what cars to buy and what to power their home with. They're doing it right now. The market works. Sorry it's not fast enough for you, but for the sake of our economic stability, I personally am glad it isn't.

Our independence from Saudi oil isn't going to make it all OK. Bin Laden and his ilk will just as easily turn Chinese and Indian money into nukes for America. They will still hate us. We will still have to keep them in check. The challenge there is convincing the other countries of the world that going back to the 6th century is a really bad idea and that chasing down and eradicating the people that want to take us there, as well as preventing new young minds from believing in this bull, is a worth while endeavor. The world will most likely always remain a scary place and Chevy Volts and Solar Panels aren't going to change that.

You're not really a conservative if you want the federal government to enact restrictions and bans to solve your perceived crisis. People will get to these technologies on their own without your "Big Brother's" heavy hand. I can hardly believe that in the same post you say, "I consider myself a conservative" and then post on like a environmental Communist. Great plan. Bring our sagging economy to a complete stop in three years.
You say you don't like Al Gore's scare tactics, but your "our petro dollars are helping Bin Laden build a nuke that's pointed right at us" is OK? Talk about scare tactics!

I say take a deep breath and calm down. Change is coming and it doesn't need a heavy handed Government to get here. The people will make up their own minds on what cars to buy and what to power their home with. They're doing it right now. The market works. Sorry it's not fast enough for you, but for the sake of our economic stability, I personally am glad it isn't.

Our independence from Saudi oil isn't going to make it all OK. Bin Laden and his ilk will just as easily turn Chinese and Indian money into nukes for America. They will still hate us. We will still have to keep them in check. The challenge there is convincing the other countries of the world that going back to the 6th century is a really bad idea and that chasing down and eradicating the people that want to take us there, as well as preventing new young minds from believing in this bull, is a worth while endeavor. The world will most likely always remain a scary place and Chevy Volts and Solar Panels aren't going to change that.

Citizens have the right and responsibility to impose restrictions and regulations by passing laws in order to protect the country's resources for the citizens and future generations. There are many, many examples of regulations and restrictions that were undeniably necessary and good to protect our air, water, and land from needless destruction by unrestricted activities of people and industry.

Competitive economic systems without restrictions and regulations have and will cause undesirable consequences to the environment. Conservative governments elected in the United States and elsewhere have recognized this and imposed regulations. For example, Nixon supported many regulations to protect the environment:

(http://janda.org/politxts/state%20of%20union%20addresses/1970-1974%20Nixon%20T/RMN73N.html)

An example of failure to regulate that is causing costly and needless problems is mercury emission from coal-fired power plants. The technology exists to drastically reduce mercury emissions at relatively low cost, but is not being implemented because of a lack of regulation. Meanwhile, mercury levels in fish are getting to the point that people are told not to eat fish too often in order to avoid the horrible consequences of mercury poisoning.

Citizens have the right and responsibility to impose restrictions and regulations by passing laws in order to protect the country's resources for the citizens and future generations. There are many, many examples of regulations and restrictions that were undeniably necessary and good to protect our air, water, and land from needless destruction by unrestricted activities of people and industry.

Funny how commonly accepted things become more and more environmentally unfriendly as time goes on - to the point where our own exhalations are destroying the planet.


Competitive economic systems without restrictions and regulations have and will cause undesirable consequences to the environment. Conservative governments elected in the United States and elsewhere have recognized this and imposed regulations. For example, Nixon supported many regulations to protect the environment:

(http://janda.org/politxts/state%20of%20union%20addresses/1970-1974%20Nixon%20T/RMN73N.html)

There are responsible ways to impose restrictions, sadly, libs are oblivious to all of them.


An example of failure to regulate that is causing costly and needless problems is mercury emission from coal-fired power plants. The technology exists to drastically reduce mercury emissions at relatively low cost, but is not being implemented because of a lack of regulation. Meanwhile, mercury levels in fish are getting to the point that people are told not to eat fish too often in order to avoid the horrible consequences of mercury poisoning.

If you hate mercury so much, why are libs such advocates of the compact flourescent bulbs, which contain mercury and require a hazmat team to clean up a broken one? Oh, and yes, you've shown yourself to be a liberal. I was dismissing you as a mere totalitarian, but your mindset is clearly leftist.

Funny how commonly accepted things become more and more environmentally unfriendly as time goes on - to the point where our own exhalations are destroying the planet.



There are responsible ways to impose restrictions, sadly, libs are oblivious to all of them.



If you hate mercury so much, why are libs such advocates of the compact flourescent bulbs, which contain mercury and require a hazmat team to clean up a broken one? Oh, and yes, you've shown yourself to be a liberal. I was dismissing you as a mere totalitarian, but your mindset is clearly leftist.

Yes, I forgot, all people who aren't "conservative" are oblivious liberals or totalitarian. How oblivious of me.

In fact, I do care about mercury from CFL's. Mercury from CFL's can and should be dealt with by recycling and eventually by replacement with LED's. However, mercury from coal-fired power plants is a much, much bigger problem that can and should be dealt with by relatively inexpensive existing technology.

With respect to commonly accepted things "becoming" environmentally unfriendly, that can happen when one comes out of their oblivion.

Why label and attack people, rather than just have a reasonable discussion? We don't really need to behave like the annoying people on cable news.

At least we agree that responsible regulation is a good thing. That's progress. Now I just have to come out of my oblivion and become a "conservative" so that I know how to be responsible.

In fact, I do care about mercury from CFL's. Mercury from CFL's can and should be dealt with by recycling and eventually by replacement with LED's. However, mercury from coal-fired power plants is a much, much bigger problem that can and should be dealt with by relatively inexpensive existing technology.

Do you have any numbers as to how much mercury is produced by a coal burning plant? Can you compare how much mercury is eliminated through the energy savings from the use of a single cfl, vs. how much mercury is contained in that cfl? It would be interesting to know.

Yes, I forgot, all people who aren't "conservative" are oblivious liberals or totalitarian. How oblivious of me.

In fact, I do care about mercury from CFL's. Mercury from CFL's can and should be dealt with by recycling and eventually by replacement with LED's. However, mercury from coal-fired power plants is a much, much bigger problem that can and should be dealt with by relatively inexpensive existing technology.

With respect to commonly accepted things "becoming" environmentally unfriendly, that can happen when one comes out of their oblivion.

Why label and attack people, rather than just have a reasonable discussion? We don't really need to behave like the annoying people on cable news.

At least we agree that responsible regulation is a good thing. That's progress. Now I just have to come out of my oblivion and become a "conservative" so that I know how to be responsible.


Actually my conservatism is really more social than ecomonic but if you like traditional family values you end up voting for the same guys who like a strong military and the lowering of the cap gains tax. Similarly if you're for gay marriage you end up also joining forces politically with other areas of liberalism that might not be your preference such as higher taxation and entitlements.

As far as being a tyranist :D, we are at war. In war if its serious enough you might have to take drastic measures such as inacting marshall law, rationing food or imposing a military draft. The war we are in can be traced back to our dependency on petroleum and over a half a century of entanglement with the Middle East. I see getting off of oil the key to ending and winning the War on Terror. I also see that future oil supplies are limited and could lead to other conflict possibly involving China, not to mention the economic impact starting to be felt by everyone who doesn't have major holdings in oil companies. In my heart I do not want any American citizen or company to suffer a loss of freedom but I consider oil to be the root cause of terrorism from which we must free ourselves. Does that mean I'm going to take over the government, set up my own junta and personally outlaw gasoline? Of course not. I'm only wishfully thinking what would be best for America and IMHO a global auto fleet that ran on GM-Volt techology.

Do you have any numbers as to how much mercury is produced by a coal burning plant? Can you compare how much mercury is eliminated through the energy savings from the use of a single cfl, vs. how much mercury is contained in that cfl? It would be interesting to know.

From Sylvania's website:

http://ecom.mysylvania.com/content/display.scfx?id=003683606

Hmmmm. I always thought of myself as a conservative, but listening to the two self-proclaimed conservatives who favor intense govt intervention, I'm starting to think that I'm either a Liberitarian or an Anarchist. There's an awful lot of "but the ends justfy the means" thinking being called Conservative.

Hmmmm. I always thought of myself as a conservative, but listening to the two self-proclaimed conservatives who favor intense govt intervention, I'm starting to think that I'm either a Liberitarian or an Anarchist. There's an awful lot of "but the ends justfy the means" thinking being called Conservative.

You might read up on Randian Objectivism on Wikipedia - laissez-faire capitalist, minarchist (small government), etc.

I recognize the security threat that our current energy situation puts us in, and in that case, redirecting or re-basing the economy is prudent.

I was referring to Roger881 and pdt.

I was referring to Roger881 and pdt.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that you were referring to me. I saw that you were guessing that you might be a libertarian or anarchist (as I thought I might be) and recommended reading the Wiki page on Randian Objectivism (which I did and found myself in agreement, instead of purely libertarian or anarchist).

I was referring to Roger881 and pdt.

I hereby modify my position.

Former: If I had my way new manufacturing and importation of the ICE with the exception of using them as back-up secodary engines would be outlawed in 3 years.

Present: If I had my way all within 3 years American and foriegin car manufacturers would of their own volition choose to no longer make private passenger cars with ICEs except as secondary back-up engines. Exceptions for law enforcement, emergency response vehicles and commercial vehicles such as semis.

Thanks for helping me see I was wrongly looking to government madates as the solution instead of private initiated solutions.

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1569538/

Here is a good way, this changed my mind.

I'm as conservative as they come, and just like every other Electrical Engineer (or Ex Electrical Engineer like me) I've wanted an EV ever since I started driving in 1980. I'll do almost anything to avoid buying imports or any type, including gas and oil.

Plus it would be fun to drive past all those sad people at the gas stations.

From Sylvania's website:

http://ecom.mysylvania.com/content/display.scfx?id=003683606

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/technology/28led.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/technology/28led.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

So, using this logic we should boycott the Volt because of the Hg released during it's charge time. No sale on this tactic.
Let's get the Volt's wheels on the road!
Be well,
Tag

So, using this logic we should boycott the Volt because of the Hg released during it's charge time. No sale on this tactic.
Let's get the Volt's wheels on the road!
Be well,
Tag

The logic of the Volt is not in question for me, but we should require Hg-abatement on all coal-fired power plants. In my opinion we are being incredibly negligent to knowingly pollute our enviroment with Hg when the technology to prevent that pollution is so cheap.

I'm as conservative as they come, and just like every other Electrical Engineer (or Ex Electrical Engineer like me) I've wanted an EV ever since I started driving in 1980. I'll do almost anything to avoid buying imports or any type, including gas and oil.

Plus it would be fun to drive past all those sad people at the gas stations.

EXACTLY what he said.

I'm as conservative as they come, and just like every other Electrical Engineer (or Ex Electrical Engineer like me) I've wanted an EV ever since I started driving in 1980. I'll do almost anything to avoid buying imports or any type, including gas and oil.

Plus it would be fun to drive past all those sad people at the gas stations.

Same... except I dropped out before completing my EE courses.

First post here. I am one of those stupid conservatives that does not believe in Man Made Global Warming. But let me ask you liberals a couple of questions. Why have you not taken it upon yourself to find an alternative to Oil and save the planet? Would not a 50% reduction of C02 be better than nothing right now? There are golf carts out there right now that you can charge up and drive. How many of you are off the grid? Or are the solar companies in the conspiracy also? If drilling for oil will not help and there is none out there, what do we have to loose? BTW, any incentives given by the government is coming out of your pocket. Feel free to send me a check and I will put some solar panels on my roof next week. I am guessing no checks will be coming my way.

Hmmmm. I always thought of myself as a conservative, but listening to the two self-proclaimed conservatives who favor intense govt intervention, I'm starting to think that I'm either a Liberitarian or an Anarchist. There's an awful lot of "but the ends justfy the means" thinking being called Conservative.


I might be who you're talking about. These positions of mine are ONLY in the light of what I consider a serious national security emergency. I realize others don't see WWIII that could go nuclear with the US at the target all funded by the American people every time we fill up as a big deal but I sure do. I don't believe involuntary servitude is a conservative value but in the face of a emergencies conservatives in the past have supported military conscription ONLY in response to a threat our nation’s survival.

First post here. I am one of those stupid conservatives that does not believe in Man Made Global Warming. But let me ask you liberals a couple of questions. Why have you not taken it upon yourself to find an alternative to Oil and save the planet? Would not a 50% reduction of C02 be better than nothing right now? There are golf carts out there right now that you can charge up and drive. How many of you are off the grid? Or are the solar companies in the conspiracy also? If drilling for oil will not help and there is none out there, what do we have to loose? BTW, any incentives given by the government is coming out of your pocket. Feel free to send me a check and I will put some solar panels on my roof next week. I am guessing no checks will be coming my way.

Chevron controls the rights to NiMH batteries, the best alternative to oil for personal automobiles. I would rather reverse the Bush tax cuts to fund tax incentives for renewables than just send you some of my cash. That would mean the incentives are coming not from my pocket but from the pockets of Bush campaign donors. Oh yeah and we should pull out of Iraq too I hear that's costing us money.

True Conservatives believe in low taxes, free markets, free people, privacy, self determination, humble foreign policy, lean heavily libertarian and do not support the Liberal Neoconservative Bush/McCain types. But if you want to sell them cars you simply have to offer them a more appealing product, plain and simple. If electric cars have come far enough they will sell better than gas cars. If they have not they will not be bought. Some would say that government can force people to buy them or force the gas types out of existence, but this is socialist or fascist policy. The government was never intended to to do this under our Constitutional Republic. If the free market were allowed to function we might already have widespread electric cars if they proved to be superior, instead we will get them jammed down our throat by government. We have to remember that the government does nothing well, no government ever has...all that have gained control have become empires or totalitarian and fallen. Almost all modern advancement has come from free markets and individual ideas. Our current system is becoming more Orwellian each day, and seems to be socializing the economy, they centralized the banking system in 1913 with the creation of the unconstitutional federal reserve which started the death of the free market really. We should be taking everything we can out of the hands of government and if the people want more fuel efficient cars, the market would decide that. Honestly I want an electric car myself for both environmental reasons and others......and if there were 50 electric car companies making them under a true free market system I would already have a damn good one..or an air powered, or hydrogen or whatever the market decided to be best. But our over regulated and controlled markets are not capable of supporting 50 electric car manufacturers...and the regulations in place make it very difficult for someone with truly new ideas to break in. Now more than ever we need to elect free market libertarians to congress and the presidency. We could become the innovator once again after a generation or two. Republicans and Democrats have become the same two headed party of big government warmongers who will throw you some breadcrumbs through socialism if you give up your right to decide anything. For some reason we just keep going right along. People criticize "big oil" but the fact that we have big oil is a product of regulations. Super corporations grow when strong regulations are put in place, these regulations allow some to prosper and others to suffer by manipulating those regulations. A lot of people are quick to bash free markets, but please do not confuse free markets with corporatism they are opposites. In a free market these corporate monsters would not have that power to stifle innovation and if they become monopolies it would be very clear. Our government cannot even decide what a monopoly is anymore.

Patriot24: I take issue with a couple of your assertions.

Without regulation we would in many markets have monopolies or collusive oligopolies. It's highly simplistic to say that "regulation is bad" rather than "Bad regulations are detrimental." I assure you that I'm fiscally more conservative than anyone who thinks W has been a decent president, but the "all regulation is bad" thing is a little too Libertarian to be practical in the modern world. Your statement overall leaves the impression that you think monopolies are bad, yet preventing monopolies in many cases requires regulation.

Our political system is broken and doesn't serve most of the people well. In part that's because it serves a tiny fraction of the people VERY well, to the point of licking their boots and shoring up their wealth, and it needs reform. This is *NOT* the reform that McCain and Palin pretend to support, however, lest you think I don't understand the real meaning of the word.

Finally I disagree with your assertion that "Almost all modern advancement has come from free markets and individual ideas." I can support the "individual ideas" part because there is usually one (or a small group) of innovators for any given breakthrough, but HUGE advances have been made as a direct result of government decisions, direction and/or support. The space program alone has resulted in innovations from heat-reflective pocket-sized survival blankets to velcro to Tang. Wars have also driven immense leaps forward in technology. Now, the fact that we've tended to WIN those wars supports the idea that freer markets lead to more and faster innovation. I'm not arguing that you're completely off the mark, just that absolutism is detrimental in almost any direction. Absolute libertarian capitalism is only a little more viable in the long term than communist central planning.

I want to say that I am a progressive Democrat, but I think your original post was very good. I definitely respect your post. A lot of our problems that many in this forum have a shared belief exist need to be solved, and neither party is doing a good job of it. :) Hopefully we can shake em up and switch a lot of them out and get some things fixed. Luckily politicians are a renewable resource! (I think Al Gore said that before, but seriously I didn't mean to post that cliché.. it just fits."

For the most part, I agree. "Global Warming"? Who cares? I prefer it warmer!
At the tail end of it, the politics "don't mean nothing!". The bottom line always is and always has been "Does the plug-in hybrid automobile make economic sense?" For some people, the "classic" hybrid (like the Prius) does make sense. (or, would that be "dollars".) .. At least some logic says that a plug-in will be as well, but we'll have to "do the math".

I did the math.. solar panels will be on the roof of my house within 60 days.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For the political hack: I'm a solid flip-flopping moderate republican, and darned proud of it. Deal with it! Just try to get my vote! Betcha can't! Betcha don't have a clue!

I'm not arguing that you're completely off the mark, just that absolutism is detrimental in almost any direction. Absolute libertarian capitalism is only a little more viable in the long term than communist central planning.

This this a million times this. Should we be rigid ideologues who stick to our simplistic notions of the roles of government and big business in our society, or should be be pragmatic and strive for more nuanced, properly thought-through policy? One of the great strengths of America is that, overall, it doesn't usually lapse into absolutism like so many communist and fascist countries have. There's a strong streak of pragmatism in American politics, where solutions to problems are worked through carefully and soberly, with ideological or partisan concerns taking a backseat to real-world concerns. This approach, I'm afraid, is nowhere to be seen in the neoconservative movement that dominates Bush and McCain's decision making.

Without regulation we would in many markets have monopolies or collusive oligopolies.

Finally I disagree with your assertion that "Almost all modern advancement has come from free markets and individual ideas."

Gearhead, I'm not preaching a complete lack of law. The Repubic is the extablishment of law applied both to the people and the government. You must have some law or you would have anarchy in the streets and markets. This law however was to be clearly defined and minimally applied as to allow everyone free will and a level playing feild (level meaning you can fail or win). Today we are buried under so many laws we don't even know what is illegal anymore. There are so many regulations, you have to hire someone to make sure your "up to code". Legislators are passing laws at this point just to pass them and say I've had 100 bills passed.

It's true also that nearly all innovations are born of the free market when allowed to flourish....I'll take a quote on innovation in the space program from one of the best free market sites that I've found. Mises.org (Von Mises institute)

"On October 4, 2004, the privately funded SpaceShip-One climbed to an altitude of over 70 miles, clinching the $10 million "X Prize." Many analysts were excited by the prospects for commercial space travel, and the day when orbital or even interplanetary flights would be affordable for the average person. As if to rebut the naysayers who dismissed SpaceShipOne as a mere tourist attraction for millionaires, Las Vegas hotel magnate Robert Bigelow capitalized on the event by announcing a $50 million prize for the first team to put a privately funded space station into orbit.

Beyond the obvious implications for sci-fi buffs and other space enthusiasts, the episode sheds light on the versatility of free enterprise. Most obvious, we see that the government is not necessary for space exploration; engineers and pilots do not suddenly become smarter when they are hired by NASA. Indeed, because a free market in space industries would be open to all competitors, we have every reason to expect technological innovation to be much quicker than in a monopolized space program.

In a free market, the maverick pioneer just needs to convince one or a few capitalists (out of thousands) to finance his revolutionary project, and then the results will speak for themselves. In contrast, an innovative civil servant at NASA needs to convince his direct superiors before trying anything new. If his bosses happen to dislike the idea, that’s the end of it.

Prior to the exploits of SpaceShipOne, the standard justification for government involvement in space was that such undertakings were "too expensive" for the private sector. But what does this really mean? The Apollo moon program certainly didn’t create labor and other resources out of thin air. On the contrary, the scientists, unskilled workers, steel, fuel, computers, etc. that went into NASA in the 1960s were all diverted from other industries and potential uses. The government spent billions of dollars putting Neil Armstrong on the moon, and consequently the American taxpayers had billions fewer dollars to spend on other goods and services."

On the third, Contrary to popular belief war is extremely destructive to a prosperous society. War is expensive and must be either funded by taxpayers, borrowed (debt and ultimately inflation), or printed (inflation). Inflation is the most evil of taxes because as more dollars are printed (or added to a spreadsheet), the value of everyone else's dollars goes down. The people who get to use the money first (wall street, banks) get the most benefit, the people on fixed income are devasted as their dollar buy less. The value of their money is effectively "stolen" from them. It's a way for the government to tax without having to ask people, and many people don't undertand that it's happening. This is what happens when money is not bound to a commodity, they are free to manipulate the money supply. This enables them to wage more war and provide more welfare while gaining more control. They say that war is the health of the state because during war time governments gain power at a rapid rate through these financial means, under the guise of making us safe, and false patriotism. True patriotism is critical thinking and reasonable dissent. Imagine if some of the thousands of people who were cheering their Nazi leader actually thought critcally about the situation. Government is a necessary evil, but large government is just plain evil. There really is no way to justify it, it is a "dangerous servant and a fearful master." Ultimately what is lost during war never justifies what is gained. There are almost always better ways and faster ways to solve these situations. Vietnam was a great example of this, ultimately Vietnam fell to communism so our goal was not achieved. Today free'er markets are bringing western civilization to these people. If our government tried to force these things on their people they would be forcefully rejected, but when given the choice things are much different. War is only to be used as a last resort and then only in defense. I'm afraid that today we are headed in the wrong direction in nearly every way and our next president will not be capable of helping us unless we start voting and building a third party. The two parties have gained a duopoly on the political process and made it nearly impossible for another party to get on ballots or get publicity. We need a free market in politics also to expand the debate and get real answers rather than lipstick on pigs and ****** fist bumps. There are real solutions out there. Just not in the two headed monster.

SpaceshipOne is a perfect example of an area where private industry can't compete with government. I'm sure you could have found a better example than that!

Patriot24: Spaceship One is a significant accomplishment, and far from Rutan's only accomplishment. It was built from many building blocks developed in the government's space program and the military (jet and rocket engines, a "mother ship" airplane dropping a rocket plane that takes a suborbital flight and lands on a runway, etc.) Again, Rutan did it better, cheaper, etc... but it's dishonest to suggest that he didn't benefit from the X-plane programs of the '50s and '60s, the development of jet engines in WWII, etc. These things aren't independent, they're developments and refinements of prior art, and lots of that art comes from government and military influences. I never suggested that war itself is beneficial to society, I merely pointed out that many technological advances developed in wartime have peacetime applications that do benefit society as a whole, it's a side effect but it's quite real.

My point is that Libertarian ideas can be as bad if carried to the extreme as communist or fascist ones. An absolutist, preconceived analysis of history is probably better than ignoring history altogether, but an open-minded, intellectually curious approach shows a truer picture, it's just not always pretty and doesn't always support the premise one starts with. Re-read what I wrote before and please take note of the summation at the end.

Why would any private investor have bankrolled something like the space program? There have been incredible technology offshoots, to be sure, but these were a by-product, not the end target. Don't investors put up the cash in hopes to make more? The government doesn't have to make a profit . . .

I'm happy to spend tax dollars on scientific research - knowledge for knowledge's sake is worthwhile, in of itself. Applications of that knowledge can be very useful, but making a profit from it can be a ways down the road, and most investors are looking for short-term performance.

Allow me to posit my $0.02 here. I am a purplish conservative. I'm not a right-wing Kool-Aid drinker believing that global warming is a "complete crock" nor am I a left-wing Cassandra that believes we're all going to be drowned by the melting of the polar ice caps in the next 2 years. Regardless of your stance on climate change, I think there are some compelling reasons to root for the Volt's success for energy independence reasons.

The fact that the U.S. is 5% of the world's population, but we consume 25% of the earth's resources is obscene. It's an inescapable fact that a more affluent lifestyle will have a higher level of consumption than basic subsistence. I haven't yet found a comparison that factors in recycling into the equation.

Anyway...I guess the point I'm making is that it's sad if we as a nation define the "American" lifestyle by our level of consumption. I'd rather the "American" way of life be defined by generosity, innovation, and a sense of stewardship toward our community and our nation. I have been a GM skeptic for many, many years, and I still remain guarded about the company's future and direction, but the Volt is a decisive step in the right direction.

Allow me to posit my $0.02 here. I am a purplish conservative. I'm not a right-wing Kool-Aid drinker believing that global warming is a "complete crock" nor am I a left-wing Cassandra that believes we're all going to be drowned by the melting of the polar ice caps in the next 2 years. Regardless of your stance on climate change, I think there are some compelling reasons to root for the Volt's success for energy independence reasons.

The fact that the U.S. is 5% of the world's population, but we consume 25% of the earth's resources is obscene. It's an inescapable fact that a more affluent lifestyle will have a higher level of consumption than basic subsistence. I haven't yet found a comparison that factors in recycling into the equation.

Anyway...I guess the point I'm making is that it's sad if we as a nation define the "American" lifestyle by our level of consumption.

igotzzoom this is a good post, it brings up the fact that we are a consumer based society. 70% of our economy is based on consumption......why is this? It is largely because of the expansion of credit due to our monetary system. As I've written in my previous posts, the centralized fiat money system allows the government to expand or contract credit throughout the economy based on rates and the manipulation of the total cash supply. The expansion of the credit allows and encourages loans and the perception of reduced risk. The rate at which you give a loan is based on the risk of the borrower to repay. It's gotten to a point that nearly our entire economy is running on credit. Under this system people are encouraged not to save and take more loans. Why save when the dollars that you save are decreasing in value and loans are so easy to get? This is why we are consumers. During an artificial boom we consume greatly and wastefully. If we ran under a true free market system there would not be so much wasteful spending and wealth would be much more evenly distributed. Our discussion is getting into interesting areas it seems because under a true free market system war would be done only as a last resort and projects such as the space program wouldn't be funded unless the people decided that they were worthy of their money. If someone thought it was a good project to publicize their company or display it's talent that could get it moving also. Would the truly free market have gotten us there quicker? I would say yes if that was the will of the people. The free market system might create an entire space industry. Governments have been notoriously bad in the course of human history at allocating resources and determining needs. The advancements brought by the free market in America probably outnumber government inventions 90 to 10. I might be generous on the government side there. Some government is necessary, large government is inherently corrupt, wasteful, and ultimately abusive. This is the truth throughout the history of the world. You cannot expect creativity to come out of bureaucracy , government is force and must be used only in situations that require extreme force. There are many that could explain my side of this much better than me, but I do have a decent understanding of it. Our wasteful and ecologically destructive society is a product of our wasteful government and immoral monetary system. The founders required that our money be bound to gold so that government could not manipulate it's value and become a tyrannical monster. The central banking system was never intended either, the founders tried a central bank and then dissolved it because it was too dangerous. The federal reserve is really an unconstitutional semi private entity which should not exist. If rates were set locally we would not have the booms and bust that we are having right now due to contraction of the previous artificial boom they created. Don't even get me started on the fractional reserve banking system which allow a bank to only have 10% or less of money on hand and ultimately create money out of thin air. If free markets and honest money existed we would be a much greener, more responsible, and more loved part of the world. It does require that we change the way we think, but that is real change...and change for the better.

What is money?

http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2006/06/money_the_econo.html

Patriot, while I may not agree with or understand all of your premises, I definitely agree that the government has perpetuated the concept of a "debt society." I think the global implosion of capital markets you're seeing right now is a direct result of that. My wife and I have been hoping to buy a house the last few years, but I know that home values were way over-inflated, and using the rational 30-year fixed yardstick, the prevailing property values were WAY out of the realm of affordability for us. I knew several years ago this was a house of cards waiting to collapse.

The only time I use a credit card any more is for travel or travel reservations.

I hope the tide may be turning, but I just see a general complacency and ignorance among a lot of people about their lifestyle and its impact on the economy and the planet. They're just so busy pursuing their self-indulgent pleasures, they can't be bothered with "boring" matters like national policy issues.

Patriot, while I may not agree with or understand all of your premises, I definitely agree that the government has perpetuated the concept of a "debt society." I think the global implosion of capital markets you're seeing right now is a direct result of that. My wife and I have been hoping to buy a house the last few years, but I know that home values were way over-inflated, and using the rational 30-year fixed yardstick, the prevailing property values were WAY out of the realm of affordability for us. I knew several years ago this was a house of cards waiting to collapse.

igotzzoom I would wait for the house, this is not the bottom by a long shot. Rents will be cheap right now. Credit is still contracting and these "liquidity injections" are more morphine in the drug addict's arm. This contraction is going to be bad. I would try to maintain the value of the money your saving while waiting for the bottom. All the fundamentals right now are bad. It may take a few years before house prices bottom out.

What is money?

http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2006/06/money_the_econo.html

I like the article, but the problem lies in the ideal situation listed in the article.

"Economy 2b, on the other hand, has just the right amount of money growth. Whoever is controlling the money supply is doing a good job of creating new money at the same rate that new goods and services are being created. [This, by the way, is my favorite kind of economy: high growth, while inflation is low, predictable, and well under control."

This quote suggests that the "correct" amount can be achieved by a central planner. This has been shown time and time again to be impossible. Only the free market can determine the correct value and supply of money. All fiat currencies have collapsed into the garbage bins of history. If a central planner does not achieve perfect knowledge during his time in office we will have booms and busts. They are inevitable because you cannot plan an economy from one point of control. Fiat currencies inevitably fail once trust in them is shaken and they return to their intrinsic value. I expect ours to be no different. Right now as in the great depression, we are suffering from the mistakes of central planning. Free markets are extremely strong arguments for the defense of liberty. Governments just love Keynesian theory. Free and prosperous people love Austrian theory. Read Human Action by Von Mises. Probably one of the greatest books in the history of the world. http://mises.org/resources/3250

igotzzoom I would wait for the house, this is not the bottom by a long shot. Rents will be cheap right now. Credit is still contracting and these "liquidity injections" are more morphine in the drug addict's arm. This contraction is going to be bad. I would try to maintain the value of the money your saving while waiting for the bottom. All the fundamentals right now are bad. It may take a few years before house prices bottom out.

You could also try assessing your own personal situation as an individual in your local area.

http://www.benengebreth.org/archives/2005/06/housing_priceto.php

"All fiat currencies have collapsed into the garbage bins of history."

Efforts to tie the money to some physical standard like gold are aimed at limiting or stopping economic growth, which really is the goal of many of the elites. Besides it's not like the price of gold has some fixed value anyway. Your argument against central planning has some merit, but what is the solution? Are you advocating different currencies?

I think it's very clear that the American economy has been badly mismanaged, but is a Ron Paul gold standard solution really the best way to fix it? I'm not convinced.

"All fiat currencies have collapsed into the garbage bins of history."

Efforts to tie the money to some physical standard like gold are aimed at limiting or stopping economic growth, which really is the goal of many of the elites. Besides it's not like the price of gold has some fixed value anyway. Your argument against central planning has some merit, but what is the solution? Are you advocating different currencies?

Actually some of our most prosperous times in this country were during a gold standard. A commodity based currency still grows but the rate at which is does is controlled. It becomes more valuable as the supply of good increases and the price of the goods is driven downward. Elites love fiat currencies because they allow manipulation of the currency supply. The supply can be changed at any time and at the will of the non-elected semi-federal reserve system. This allows a country to fire up the printing presses and run off to war, or fire them up and fund a welfare state and eventually a socialist society. All you have to do is make more dollars and the middle class shrinks, the division between rich and poor grows and more of the formker middle class seek social services just to get by. Most never undertand what is happening to them. A commodity based currency keeps everyone honest, it requires a country to save or ask it's citizens to fund the war. This assures that the war is really wanted and legitimate an puts the power(money) in the hands of the people. It also assures that the welfare system never becomes abusive because as welfare grew people would have to fund it directly and would feel the pain. Instead, the government can once again fire up the presses and manufacture money adding to the supply and lowering the value of the dollar and ultimately your paycheck which buy less goods. This destroys the middle class and especially the elderly who saved their whole lives only to see that savings decreasing in real world value, requiring them to seek socialism (assistance). This is why a controlled supply is so important. Government when allowed to take an inch will take a mile. Look what is happening today, all a result of an artifically expanded system which has to contract now because of malinvestment. It would be best for the growth of the middle class, if the currency was stable, but that would reduce the number of rich and poor drawing that wealth to everyone who seeks it through work and providing a more level playing feild. Elites don't like a level playing feild.

As for gold not having a fixed value, it has been extremely stable against other commodities. 100 years ago an ounce of gold bought a quality suit and shoes. Today that same ounce of gold buys the same (even with the manipulation a 1 ounce gold eagle is roughly $880). Gold has also been stable against oil). What is changing is the value of the dollar which fluctuates all over the place based on printing and expansion through the fractional reserve system and federal reserve rates.

Actually yes, competing currencies would force the government to be more honest with the money supply. Right now the govenment has an monopoly on the creation of money. This was never intended. If people are free to reject debased currency, and instead demand sound money, sound money will gradually return to use in society. Who would hold a federal reserve note if it was decreasing in value.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/cm/thedailygreen/images/RC/oil-gold-price-md.jpg
Barrels of oil per dollar in blue, Euro in red and ounce of gold in purple.

The whole issue is secondary to that of government. People who are worried about the dollar can still buy gold.

Gold is a capital asset under our current system. You cannot exchange it without paying tax on it. They do not want gold to directly compete with federal reserve notes. Also the face value on a US minted gold coin may be fifty dollars but they want you to pay tax on the intrinsic value of the gold which is close to 900 federal reserve notes($) today. In this way there is no way to force the Reserve to produce sound money by competing using gold, only slightly influence, we can't even vote them out, they're not elected. The Federal Reserve has a monopoly. They can manipulate the currency all over the place until it eventually collapses. Government is closely intertwined with monetary policy, it always has been and always will be, the monetary policy either allows or restricts their actions. After the millions and millions of deaths over the course of human history, it is clear that no government should be free of constitutional chains.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws."
-Mayer Amschel Rothschild

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)

Tell them Jesus would drive a PHEV? and abortion loving commies drive SUVs

I agree. Been there, done that. I spend a lot of my free time on boards trying to persuade conservatives to see the value of alternative energy and they simply do not care an iota about the environmental arguments and think its all non-sense.


Speaking as a resident conservative, I disagree. I care about the environment. I don't buy all the global warming hype but that doesn't mean I'm not anti-pollution. I just don't see a world wide tax to a self appointed global committee as any kind of solution to the pollution problem

This is typical of liberals I meet. Stereotype conservatives as close minded morons who need to be clubbed over the head to understand when in fact its you who does not understand them.

Tell them Jesus would drive a PHEV? and abortion loving commies drive SUVs

That's about as ignorant as saying, "Hey, just tell liberals that proceeds from the sale go to help free convicted pedophiles and cop killers. "

That's about as ignorant as saying, "Hey, just tell liberals that proceeds from the sale go to help free convicted pedophiles and cop killers. "

I think it was a joke to lighten things on this thread up a bit. I thought it was sort of humorous, but nevermind me. Please go back to the regularly schedualed partisan bickering.;)

Yeah its a joke But for liberals i would tell them that only sunshine comes out of the exhaust and that once the car is crushed it turns to over priced coffee and granola

How about Free abortions and bible to burn with every volt?

Yeah theres to much dumb partisan bickering here.

Thought you guys might enjoy reading my blog (http://blogs.automotive.com/6298332/opinion/chevy-volt-appeal-goes-across-class-and-political-lines/index.html) along these lines. :)

Chevron controls the rights to NiMH batteries, the best alternative to oil for personal automobiles. I would rather reverse the Bush tax cuts to fund tax incentives for renewables than just send you some of my cash. That would mean the incentives are coming not from my pocket but from the pockets of Bush campaign donors. Oh yeah and we should pull out of Iraq too I hear that's costing us money.


In other words. You would like someone else to pay for your ride. This is why conservatives are not on the same page. I would rather walk than ask you to pay for my car.