Your Solution to the US Economy

[TheKhan]

I don`t understand the details (actually I don`t believe the explanations), and especially Republican`s should mark my words, innovation and good spirits drive an economy ultimately.

And therefore I would like to share my views on what to do and would also like to hear what others think.

Solution 1. First we need job creation "THINK TANKS" in each state, that look at all the cracks and opportunities that are there, that are organized into a central structure. I know that the US economy and lifestyle in general has lots of areas to look at. As America is a country that chooses to have lots of slack in many areas (plenty of construction to do..). Another words we are fat and its time we start looking at ways to get slim and modern for now. It`s times like these that it helps to be fat, btw. Its part of an exit strategy and a particular mind set, that I like might I add (too efficient is not good for the long term especially in times of trouble).

One thing to note is to make sure is that the money goes to many people who will spend, not a selected few who like to save unlike some other administration. Lots of people being able to spend towards others so that others can spend towards some others and for others is essential to lubricate the economy!!!!


Solution 2. This is an extreme view, but I push this idea every now and then as I view this as a possible backbone and as a long term solution to what our economy needs. Considering what can be gained, including the waste(R&D, experimentation etc..) that will be needed to get through to make this a reality in many areas in the economy, I think this might work like a charm.

I suggest a 90% and above hydrogen-based economy.
(forget all the other energies like wind, water, bio, etc.. it`s not the power rangers, we need focus)

First this will save money for Americans in the long term. Second the job losses can be spread out and actually cleanly transferred into new areas, it might not be that painful (gasoline transporters will transport hydrogen etc..). Second new trucks, new distribution infrastructure, new technology will be needed. This creates lots of jobs in multiple industries it is countless. No joke, job creation will be endless.

So thus, I would like to suggest we not try to be efficient while we spend billions on a few, and buy into centralized monopolistic Atomic energy strategies.

Hydrogen economy is the way to go.


Solution 3. This roughly is a synergy with #2 above, but going,

ECO is the NEW FRONTIER in economics.

Through this we can achieve the next level of a high-tech society. And there are still many technologies that you and I don`t know about that are great strategies and ideas. Instead of waiting for the big guys to get to work which they already are, why not be part of the driving force.


Solution 4. In sync with #2, #3, just plainly go super-high tech. Well this is straight forward and this will happen anyways but I`ll mention it anyways. Our days to print TV screens and computer memory out of printers are coming really close. We`ll be taping our TV`s to the wall like a poster very soon.



Some day in the near future, I would eventually like to fill up my car with free water, instead of gas. And before that see all cars, trucks, taxis, tanks, planes running on hydrogen or you get the idea. Plenty of videos on YouTube to get you inspired. But we do need a courageous jolt from the government to open up an entire world for us regular people which are the majority, which frankly I do not think Obama has it in him. Its not that I question his character, but I question his circumstances that he must walk the center path which takes a lot of guts too. And what I suggest is not the center.

It is more like ultra-left and ultra-right combined.

Any opinions and suggestions anyone?

TK

p.s. I like the idea of an eco-friendly military. Good posture.

 

[Pathless]

TheKhan, what do you think about the "hydrogen isn't an energy source, it's an energy carrier" argument? From what I understand, hydrogen is a net energy loser.

Hydrogen economy: energy and economic black hole | Energy Bulletin
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells

and etc.

I don't think that we need to be thinking about where we are going to get our next cheap energy source, or our next not-so-cheap energy source. I think we need to start thinking about how much energy we use, period. How much is necessary? How much is too much?

One interesting thing I noticed in passing today while perusing some articles about the economic downturn is that there has been a reduction in the amount of garbage being generated that parallels that flagging economy. To me, this is one positive thing to come out of this unwanted situation.

Slowing economy curbs garbage - USATODAY.com

America is arguably the most wasteful and privileged society to ever grace the face of planet Earth. Perhaps the bottom line of the bottom dropping out of the American speculative-consumer economy is that America has been practicing and promoting an unsustainable, unhealthy, and insane lifestyle for the past however-so-many-years. Finally all the funny money is being exposed for being the fluff and nothing that it is, and people the world over are going to find themselves in a different reality than the one that has been pushed on them by the priests of capitalism, consumerism, and free trade.

The poor people of the world have almost nothing to lose and so much to gain as the economy collapses. It's the affluent that are going to protest much to the sudden downward adjustment.* We'll all be much better off the sooner we realize that the technotopia we've imagined for ourselves is on its way out the door.

There is no solution to the US economy. The over-affluence and speculative capital is the problem. That imaginary money never really existed, even as the investors pushed it and chased it all over the globe.

If we truly want a sound and sane economy, we need to think basics: food, shelter, clothing. And we need to be content with basic things. No more gadgets, no more excessive entertainments. We need communities, we need sustainable food and energy production, and we need a healthy respect for life and for the absolute absurd miracle that is the entire, living planet that so many people take as a given, take for granted.

2c.



*Okay, actually on re-reading this, that statement seems absurd. Unfortunately, if the past is any precedent, the poor people of the world will suffer worst. They will suffer from hunger, malnutrition, disease, crime, war, you name it, while the affluent shore up the remnants of the crumbling economy and civilization, bolstering themselves with whatever resources remain.

 

[Pathless]

I like the idea of an eco-friendly military. Good posture.

What would an eco-friendly military look like? What would it do? Isn't war, by default, destructive of ecosystems?

But I do agree with the idea I saw in your OP that links economy and ecology through their root eco-, which comes from the greek oikos, which means household. I think there's an important connection there: the economy should ultimately be the responsible management of our home, the Earth. Economies ultimately rest on healthy ecosystems; a healthy economy will work to sustain and, if possible, enhance the ecosystem. Unfortunately, the imperial movements of civilizations are hostile to ecosystems. In our current dilemma, we find ourselves in the midst of a civilization that has built itself around a growth-oriented economy that is parasitically destructive of the ecosystems that sustain it and all life.

Prognosis: bad.

But yes, there is hope... once people begin to realize that they don't need all of the material stuff that they have been sold to be happy and healthy, and once people realize that the ever-progressive trajectory and ever-increasing pace of modern life does not serve them, the planet, or anyone worth serving.

 

[Pathless]

There is no solution to the US economy. The over-affluence and speculative capital is the problem. That imaginary money never really existed, even as the investors pushed it and chased it all over the globe.

If we truly want a sound and sane economy, we need to think basics: food, shelter, clothing. And we need to be content with basic things. No more gadgets, no more excessive entertainments. We need communities, we need sustainable food and energy production, and we need a healthy respect for life and for the absolute absurd miracle that is the entire, living planet that so many people take as a given, take for granted.

This may look like an argument for or promotion of austerity. While that is probably true on some level, I don't think that people want or need to live in austerity. We need to begin to think of ways to entertain ourselves that do not involve lots of gadgets, bandwidth, spending money, the necessity of jet travel, yadda yadda yadda. It costs little to get together with a group of people and enjoy a healthy, simple feast; as opposed to one couple--or many couples! (let's face it)--taking an extravagant night out on the town. Likewise, a group of children can take a ball and play numerous sports rather than being given an expensive (monetarily and ecologically) wii and encouraged to exercise indoors. Only two examples among many.

 

[TheKhan]

This may look like an argument for or promotion of austerity. While that is probably true on some level, I don't think that people want or need to live in austerity. We need to begin to think of ways to entertain ourselves that do not involve lots of gadgets, bandwidth, spending money, the necessity of jet travel, yadda yadda yadda. It costs little to get together with a group of people and enjoy a healthy, simple feast; as opposed to one couple--or many couples! (let's face it)--taking an extravagant night out on the town. Likewise, a group of children can take a ball and play numerous sports rather than being given an expensive (monetarily and ecologically) wii and encouraged to exercise indoors. Only two examples among many.

While I understand and value your arguments, I must disagree with you slightly. You say we are dictated somewhat by the gadgets, spending money.. I agree, its like being dictated by water, but its like a game too.

I say if we put our minds to it, we can accomplish a lot of things through technology, its our way to live however, whether being down to earth or not, while pursuing efficiency, rather than spending most of our lifes scrubbing dirty clothes and hand wiping the floor. You get the idea.

They is no need to be dictated by technology while we pursue the things you just noted. We are rather dictated by petrol, so I say get rid of petrol. Thats my point.

TK

p.s. actually petrol can very much destroy the human civilization at this rate.

 

[TheKhan]

.. think about the "hydrogen isn't an energy source, it's an energy carrier" argument? From what I understand, hydrogen is a net energy loser.

.. I don't think that we need to be thinking about where we are going to get our next cheap energy source, or our next not-so-cheap energy source. I think we need to start thinking about how much energy we use, period. How much is necessary? How much is too much? ..

energy source, energy carrier? potato and potato chips, either way is fine for me. We do need another cheap energy source if it means our survival. I just thought appealing to money and jobs would finally convince us. There is never too much if it is abundant.

We don`t all have to live in tiny houses where the next person is six feet away, in narrow roads and crowded streets. Thats cutting the waste, that I staunchly disagree.

We can and do keep our standards of living while pursuing technology.

If we spent like as much resources like the Manhattan project, the hydrogen economy is possible in the way many people envision it. Actually petrol already has one foot in hydrogen as part of their purification process of petrol, fyi. So it`ll likely be the same people whether hydrogen or not in the beginning.

One interesting thing I noticed in passing today while perusing some articles about the economic downturn is that there has been a reduction in the amount of garbage being generated that parallels that flagging economy. To me, this is one positive thing to come out of this unwanted situation.

Slowing economy curbs garbage - USATODAY.com

America is arguably the most wasteful and privileged society to ever grace the face of planet Earth. .. them by the priests of capitalism, consumerism, and free trade.

I think this waste is a way to create jobs, not cut jobs btw.. With regards to garbage, the government can pay people if they want people to do their jobs. In Japan, civilians get arrested for garbage, which is just a load of crap. People will die if they tried to arrest me on those grounds, fyi. And it surprises me how the masses can be brainwashed to do the governments job. If I had my way I`d just pay people to come up with a better way to get rid of garbage, and people do think about this and execute.

Currently America is on its way where we still pay the people just as much to get rid of garbage, but we also do their work for free starting at the home. If someone isnt sorting garbage, we`ll be brainwashed to sniche to the cops about them. And the cops will also be brainswashed to arrest people for garbage.

The poor people of the world have almost nothing to lose and so much to gain as the economy collapses. It's the affluent that are going to protest much to the sudden downward adjustment.* We'll all be much better off the sooner we realize that the technotopia we've imagined for ourselves is on its way out the door.

They`ll finally have to rack up their brains and wake up to the basics you just noted. And come to grips with high-tech to be in sync with us. Which will and is happening.

There is no solution to the US economy. The over-affluence and speculative capital is the problem. That imaginary money never really existed, even as the investors pushed it and chased it all over the globe.

There is a solution to the economy, and being in good spirits is the beginning. Devolution is not an option in my book. If we`re in swamp, we don`t try to go backwards, we need to figure out how to leap forward.

It was not my intention to discuss the imaginary money. Whats bad is not an economy based on innovation. Some idiots think War, energy and petrol drives the economy, maybe their economy. Some believe Wallstreet drives the economy, LOL. But its not the economy of the masses as the economy of the masses is geared around the basics. Thus petrol raising prices in every area we can think of was a killer. Lack of interest towards innovation and low moral was the source.

If we truly want a sound and sane economy, we need to think basics: food, shelter, clothing. And we need to be content with basic things. No more gadgets, no more excessive entertainments. We need communities, we need sustainable food and energy production, and we need a healthy respect for life and for the absolute absurd miracle that is the entire, living planet that so many people take as a given, take for granted.

This is especially for the poor people you noted. Which by all means I agree with, while I also state that we should pursue this through better technology and spend money in these areas.


TK

 

[TheKhan]

What would an eco-friendly military look like? What would it do? Isn't war, by default, destructive of ecosystems?

An eco-friendly military will think about how much fuel their tanks and trucks consume, and will be trained to feel guilty if they spend too much gas. They will try to find ways to cut down costs like light sources etc.. Again their tanks and trucks will be spitting out water while they deliver lethal projectiles to their enemies.

An eco-friendly military will be good at fixing an eco-environment in any society, and their technology will be top notch. Thus an eco-friendly military can be part of the productive aspects, a driving force of the civilizian economy in peace times.

Currently the modern military lives in an independant state within a independent state, like living on a lone island. Their is a limit to how they can contribute to the civilian sector this way, when it is the civilian sector that pays them. The eco-military will be part of us, where as the current military is an over-grown hammer which needs to be spoon fed in massive amounts.


TK

 

[wil]

Hydrogen...if it cost more to make than gasoline it is not an economical fuel. If it takes diesel to create electricity to aquire the hydrogen it is a waste...this is what pathless was referring to.

Now if we use solar to extract hydrogen it becomes like a battery for solar to be used anytime.

Now if we use algae to create fuel to burn to access the hydrogen again we have a savings. Like using a food crop (corn) and then use energy to create ethanol, we are hit by a double whammy which was one of the burdens on our economy.

We like to blame the car makers...'they built all these gas guzzlers' well they only built them because we bought them. They built higher milage cars but we didn't buy them in droves.

We lead the economy. If they gov't wants to fix the gas problem increase the tax on vehicles proportionately based on milage...then use those funds for alternative...ie don't put the burden on the manufacturer, modify the sales end and the manufacturer will quit producing those vehicles.

Eonomy in general...businesses have collapsed for ever...bolstering bad businesses is a waste of money...let them collapse, they will be bought up at pennies on the dollar by companies who can either run them correctly or parcel them up and sell them off.

In Maryland we have been trying to 'save' horse racing for 30 years..because it is 'our heritage' humbug, if no one goes to the track and it can't support itself, let it die on the vine. Same with our beaches...we build cities and houses on oceanfront that is eroding and spend millions trying to beat mother nature...you can't beat mother nature...she will eventually win.

ie we need to in all regards quit beating our heads against the wall and go with the flow.

 

[TheKhan]

Hydrogen...if it cost more to make than gasoline it is not an economical fuel. If it takes diesel to create electricity to aquire the hydrogen it is a waste...this is what pathless was referring to.

Now if we use solar to extract hydrogen it becomes like a battery for solar to be used anytime.

It only costs more to make hydrogen than gasoline because we haven`t put the effort into it yet, or we`re potentially hindering such efforts, or we`re working on it. The odds are against this because petrol and atomic is not interested, but as soon as we are interested it`ll be petrol and petrol related industries who`d be the first to make major investments, which they already have.

These sorts of things happened with cars and horse wagons. People just couldn`t see why cars were needed when everything could be depended upon the horse. But look around, and the ones who invested in cars first were the horse wagon builders. This time I`m saying and wishing that we go to another type of economy like as if our lifes depended on it, like when we built the A. bomb. As our life does depend on this in the long run.

Solar panels didn`t become cheap until very recently, fyi. Don`t even wanna guess how much was spent on Atomic research. Why would anyone want to deny the same for hydrogen. And we need to accelerate this time.

For me its not a matter of whether hydrogen is a battery, then so is petrol. I think the point of going hydrogen is that it is something that can replace petrol that can be extracted from water. WATER! do I need to say this again. If we had the technology we can just fill our cars with a hose from the house. And that is what I am talking about.

The reason I am stating this is intracately calculated. It reliefs us from many wars, creates jobs, makes suckers think about getting a job, saves money.

Even within hydrogen there are endless opinions on how to do it. Talking about algae and others is a waste of time, IMO. Although not a waste of research, always good to know the alternatives.

But based on energy that is derived from water, of which the technology can be accessed by the masses is a different story. We`re burning candles when we can substitute it with cheap rocket fuel. We stare at water.. a petrol substitute daily.

When you drink your glass of water today, look at it like its a source of clean energy. And compare it petrol, a bulk of misery for most of us. Almost want to illegalize it after what just happened.


TK


p.s. when the Wright brothers invented the plane, they went to the US government first, but only the French would finance them until the US military called them back. when world-wide everyone was starting to use cellular phones, Americans tried briefly to substitute cell phones with palm pilots which is long forgotten. When the Germans were 5 years into research of the nuclear bomb, it took Einstein two attempts to finally get the military moving.

So convincing people isn`t easy, you gotta agree with that. This time it is a matter of death depending on who you ask.

 

[TheKhan]

Yes, please do get with the flow, and the flow is what I state.

As a person prone to make mistakes, I`d rather not talk in absolutes, but for this one I am 99.99% sure that it will relieve us from misery in the future. The fuel cells not being economical, the whole movement is like building a super charger before we even invent the engine.

All we need is a cheap way to produce hydrogen for now, and fill our ships, taxi`s and trucks with it. That way our basic needs like cheese burgers, pizza and corn flakes will become cheaper and a cycle can begin.

Maximum impact is hydrogen first. The rest can follow.

TK

p.s. as far as I am concerned this is less than what it took to shift from horse wagons to cars, or get used to planes, or build huge bombs. its mainly politics.

 

[wil]

It only costs more to make hydrogen than gasoline because we haven`t put the effort into it yet,....When you drink your glass of water today, look at it like its a source of clean energy. And compare it petrol, a bulk of misery for most of us.

No what you are figting when you speak about extracting hydrogen from water is perpetual motion. ie if you could get more energy out of hydrogen than it takes to extract hydrogen from water than you would be creating energy. Since every action has a loss in heat or something else, when you use a fuel to create the electricity and use the electricity to extract the hydrogen there are two processes both of which do not operate at 100% efficiency hence a loss in energy along the way.

Gasoline is still cheap, destructive but cheap, hence our continuing to use it. Solar was cheap till we discovered natural gas, then it was cheaper and easier and more reliable to heat water with natural gas than solar energy.

 

[TheKhan]

No what you are figting when you speak about extracting hydrogen from water is perpetual motion. ie if you could get more energy out of hydrogen than it takes to extract hydrogen from water than you would be creating energy. Since every action has a loss in heat or something else, when you use a fuel to create the electricity and use the electricity to extract the hydrogen there are two processes both of which do not operate at 100% efficiency hence a loss in energy along the way.

Gasoline is still cheap, destructive but cheap, hence our continuing to use it. Solar was cheap till we discovered natural gas, then it was cheaper and easier and more reliable to heat water with natural gas than solar energy.

Well depending on traditional natural resources for energy is not a solution IMO, it creates too much trouble (e.g. potential WWIII).

With regards to hydrogen extraction, I don`t know why you assume that we will never figure out an efficient way to extract hydrogen from water. But I have Murphy`s law on my side that we can develop technology at accelerated rates. BTW, if you check into recent developments in solar panels we have a process to drop the prices dramatically now.

Again, since I just added the p.s. section in the previous thread, people have accomplished much more complicated things in the past. I`d say it might be easier than going to the moon again with regards to this.


TK

 

[TheKhan]

Why do we need to be dependent on Russia and China? For the sake of having an interlaced global economy?

No, they need to get with the program by utilizing innovation as a driving force for the economy, as well as some other countries.

TK

 

[wil]

With regards to hydrogen extraction, I don`t know why you assume that we will never figure out an efficient way to extract hydrogen from water. But I have Murphy`s law on my side that we can develop technology at accelerated rates. BTW, if you check into recent developments in solar panels we have a process to drop the prices dramatically now.

TK, I'm not the one to answer this, not a scientist and don't play one on TV. However it is my understanding that there is some sort of law of energy you are dealing with in this regard. ie you can't get more energy out of putting H2O back together than you got by splitting it.

As for solar panels...the nano technology is pushing this envelope, they now have solar film that you can put on a window, still see thru the window and create electricity...murphy didn't have anything to do with it.

 

[Pathless]

Uh... for what it's worth, here's James Howard Kunstler recent musings on the mess:

Yard Sale Nation: The Change Required to Salvage U.S Society Runs Much Deeper Than Most Imagine | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet

The problem as I see it is that civilization has gotten accustomed to levels of energy consumption based on massive extraction of fossil fuels. Now there is a school of thought, widely dismissed as humbuggery by many of the more optimistic among us, that argues that oil is finite, and that we will eventually run out of it. The argument also goes that as oil reserves near depletion, which is what is happening now, their extraction will become less and less economically feasible; that is, much like the hydrogen issue, it will take more energy to extract the oil from the ground than the oil can actually provide!

I don't think that the world can continue to support our civilization at current levels of consumption. I don't think there is any free energy or cheap energy fix for our problem. This ultimately is just my opinion, based on what I have read and based on my gut/intuition. I can't stop people from disagreeing with me; however, since I do believe that our civilization faces a challenge of immense proportions in restructuring itself to meet the low-energy future, I feel it is important to put this information out there so that it can be seen and assessed.

I do hope that we will be able to meet the challenges ahead in a resourceful, productive, and even joyful way.

 

[wil]

The problem as I see it is that civilization has gotten accustomed to levels of energy consumption based on massive extraction of fossil fuels. ...

I don't think that the world can continue to support our civilization at current levels of consumption...

I do believe that our civilization faces a challenge of immense proportions in restructuring itself to meet the low-energy future...

I do hope that we will be able to meet the challenges ahead in a resourceful, productive, and even joyful way.

I agree. Whilst I currently commute 30 miles to work, work in a job that requires me to drive another 1-200 miles per week during the day... I intend to change that as soon as I am no longer responsible for feeding my kids...(they are 15 now). Now my elec/gas consumption in my home has been reduced, but after they leave I intend to reduce it further by downsizing completely from a 3 bedroom house to something much smaller and intend to live in climates which doesn't require so much energy either.

 

[Pathless]

Maybe we should seriously consider the usefulness of hemp.

Hemp Facts

 

[TheKhan]

Well I`m just gonna restate that if we put our minds to this like as if our lives depended on it, I`d say as a nation we will find a way to make hydrogen work for us within 7 years. Its really a big step and an experiment in a sense though, that many (especially oil related industries and atomic) would frown upon.

So maybe we could start small but bring in all the Einsteins to come up with a miracle generator, and then work it from maybe taxi`s to trucks and then work it out into other areas. And transfer technology like as if it was open source software.

I think the argument that it takes more energy to get hydrogen is logic based on data with available technology most likely. An Einstein will hardly ever agree that something is impossible. We`ve hardly put effort into it on a federal capacity, and technology leaps every 10 years even with just regular efforts IMO. And petrol who has a good grip on hydrogen would be the last people who would want to push hydrogen as an alternative to their main business. But again they would be the first to invest when they are doomed or forced.

Ideally maybe our cars could be a generator for the entire household within 3 decades, and we`d just fill it up with water.

Well I feel strongly about hydrogen to become the backbone of our economy, but obviously there are many other areas that need work.

Technically it is also possible for us to hand pick molecules one by one and eventually work this on a massive capacity, and noone can argue that that is impossible. Although I think finding ways to split water efficiently would be easier.

TK

p.s. so far I like what Obama is doing.

Also the car companies can build cars and trucks that easily can partially generate hydrogen from water to mix with gasoline fumes that can increase mileage (maybe wears out engine more maybe..)(noone big seems to have invested to find this out). I`m sure someone suggested this and it was a good idea but it was dropped like a hat. After I found out that it was easy to build this, I feel ridiculed that they`ve been forcing me to pay so much for gas. My food expenses are going up too these days, and its probably because of increased transportation costs in multiple areas(ships, trucks).

When I saw fisherman who couldn`t go fishing due to fuel costs, in an economy that loves fish thats when I felt that petrol based economy is impossible. That was the last straw for me (sushi..) although many others may disagree. But your corn flake prices went up, right?

 

[Joedjr]

Hi wil,

and intend to live in climates which doesn't require so much energy either.

hey, when you find this place pm me. I will not tell anyone else, promise. Thought it was here in NC but it's still too cold in the winter and too hot in the summer.
Joe

 

[TheKhan]

Hi wil,

hey, when you find this place pm me. I will not tell anyone else, promise. Thought it was here in NC but it's still too cold in the winter and too hot in the summer.
Joe

NC was on my list, it seemed just about right.

My personal favorite is LA, but I can understand why others may not want to live there.

I heard that Denver and Vancouver are very cool places to live with a nice climate.


TK