You are not logged in.
I was wondering when insults were going to enter the argument. That's fine, my type of argument anyway. It's obvious to me that you have never taken a course in macro-economics and that you are simply repeating what you've heard around the mobile home park.
Now, no matter what you wish to call it "The Hamilton Banking System" or "FDR's Newest Deal" or "JFK Prints New Money" the government can get any amount of money rather easily, they just print it, but in order to keep our entire economy from collapsing (read my first link) it must be backed by something other than the government's say so. It must have a co-signer, just like when your mom had to co-sign for you to get your scooter because your lawn mowing job doesn't pay enough or the government can have a purchaser as in T-bills, bonds... Now, when the government needs to fund more than it has in it's coffers it usually sells bonds or some other type and at maturity pays back the principal with interest. It has been doing this for a very long time. I can see how some of this is confusing for you so I've tried to keep the words as short as possible. Now you can run around calling this system by fancy names but it is really rather simple. The government borrows to meet a need then it pays interest on that loan. It's the same no matter what name you use for it.
I read that the US government in the past and at this moment can easily print new money with no problems. As the dollar as English is the defacto standard for international trade. For instance all countries use dollars to buy oil. That means that there is high demand for the dollar. People on the international market just buy dollars without asking anything in return for it. So as long as people use the Dollar for international trade the Fed can just print dollar bills, as there will always be a demand for more.
For example in the early eighties, when Americans were buying loads of Japanese stuff and paid for it in dollars. So the Americans got their Japanese gadgets but then the Japanese business people were stuck with all these dollars. They can't sell it and buy Yen’s, as the Japanese government wants the Yen lower then the dollar to keep the Japanese products relatively cheaper. So the business people decided to invest in American properties.
So the Americans traded the dollars with the Japanese for goods but got their money back by local investments. So at the end they as a people got it for free.
I can't find the links now but if the Euro is used for International trade then the US is in big trouble. Some people say that the Gulf War II was started for that reason as Saddam wanted Euros for Iraqi oil and Bush & Co were afraid other countries would follow. The Russians were also thinking about it.
Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Offline
Hmmm… I would expect that even earth leaks air. There is a statically possibility of an air molecule making it to any altitude. Of course the lower, the pressure, the lower the temperature and the greater the gravity the less likely this is. Moreover on earth if an escaping partial gets ionized before it is beyond earths magnetic field it would be recaptured. I would additionally expect that earth captures some of the solar wind which adds to the atmosphere. Micro comets also help to replenish the atmosphere. I wonder if earth’s atmosphere is in equilibrium, growing or decreasing. On mars what needs to be done is to lay a supper conducting loop around the equator. Or maybe the cable should be closer to the poles to keep the cable cool as the temperature of mars rises. There should be some filed size for which the equilibrium pressure on mars is the same as earth.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
Hello,
I'm no expert on economics, but I doubt that it would be economically healthy if the government took to such print and spend tactics. That could cause a run on the dollar and people would lose confidence in it. Remember, yes the U.S. dollar has value because the U.S. Congress says it does, but public confidence must be there in order for the dollar to be acceptable. The U.S. dollar hasn't been backed by gold since 1933, so the dollar really has no intrinsic value, only the value imparted to it by public confidence and the decree of the U.S. Congress.
Cordially,
EarthWolf
" Man will not always stay on the Earth. "
Konstantin Tsiolkovsky
Offline
Hello,
I'm no expert on economics, but I doubt that it would be economically healthy if the government took to such print and spend tactics. That could cause a run on the dollar and people would lose confidence in it. Remember, yes the U.S. dollar has value because the U.S. Congress says it does, but public confidence must be there in order for the dollar to be acceptable. The U.S. dollar hasn't been backed by gold since 1933, so the dollar really has no intrinsic value, only the value imparted to it by public confidence and the decree of the U.S. Congress.
Cordially,
EarthWolf
Well, currently what we have is a print and spend in credit and money creation in private bankers hands instead of the government hands.
So do you like that policy better?
The Federal Reserve is a private bank with a government charter to act like the Central Bank of the United State which was enacted in 1913. The other major banks also own stock in the Federal Reserve system and are share holders of the Federal Reserve system. The Federal Reserve is a private bank masquerading around like it part of the Federal Government. Any guarantee of your bank deposits by the Federal Reserve, is a promise by a private bank and not the U.S. Government. When you pay your taxes, you pay it to the Federal Reserve and not to the Federal Government. When the IRS goes after you, they are a government agency that is collecting for a private bank and not the U.S. Government. The IRS is just collection agency for a private bank called the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve System was setup in 1913 and the great depression happened 16 years later by the excesses of those private banker. FDR had to regulate the private banking, Wall Street along with setting up Gold Reserve Standard and then he setup a Brenton Wood agreement with cheap credit so we could rebuild most of the rest of Europe after World War II.
Larry,
Offline
The government can certainly print as much money as it wishes but if it were to actually use that money, print and spend, it would cause out of control inflation and the dollar's value would drop dramatically. It's an economic nightmare. The government has strict controls on the money supply and thus it preserves the worth of the American dollar.
Why do you think they come down so hard on counterfieters?
There is no such thing as free credit, even for a government.
Offline
The government can certainly print as much money as it wishes but if it were to actually use that money, print and spend, it would cause out of control inflation and the dollar's value would drop dramatically. It's an economic nightmare. The government has strict controls on the money supply and thus it preserves the worth of the American dollar.
Why do you think they come down so hard on counterfieters?
There is no such thing as free credit, even for a government.
You missed the point, not just print and spend but print and sell to foreigners. The foreigners will then give you all sorts of goodies for those printed pieces of paper that are backed up by the global economy.
But if the global economy wants to use Euros?! Then Americans will have to start working agian for those imported goodies.
Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Offline
There are really some very strange things that people are learning from late night television. Too many 'Get rich quick' schemes.
Offline
I think that economical theories and doctrines from before the 1950`es and more aplicable for the military establishment economy of the early imperial USA and it`s equivalent - the planned economy of the USSR are not at all applicable to the space colonisation.
The terraforming will be done by these who have the interest to do it. The US or other central governments will in no way spend tax payers money for real estates development. Nor a central martian government in US way.
More later...
Offline
Imperial USA?
Offline
Imperial USA?
Yes, 'imperial' in the most soft and possitive sence of the word. Every country which effectivelly interferes and in large degree determines the internal and the external policy of any other country has imperial attitude. During the WWII USA was involved with broad field of non-domestic problems regulation, and after the war finished the US wake up as world super-power. It`s presense and role in the world power 'theater' shaped the world order and as a reverse loop affected the general orientation of US power ballance. The US political elites as an obligation deal with almost everything on the planet. The problem is that no one is able to have only benefits when regulating the whole system. In long run no country has interest to have monopolistic imperial role - the expenditures become far too bigger than the incomes. For example you now spend money to regulate the legitimate violence activity in the international level, but the result is that another, more hipocritically peacefull countries will benefit , not the american taxpayer... In the last more than half a century as a result of this enforsed from outside imperialization of the USA it`s economy was entirelly deffined by the public defence contracts with tax money. In the same manner were accomplished your space program, too - like in the former USSR. But it was not any other way. The US government as USSR, China has no the institutional capacity to conquer the space otherwise, this is understandable...
The theme is too broad to be even scetched slighly here. In this geopolitical, non-emotional deffinition of 'imperial' US are, and another decade or two will be, yet, an empire. I have to emphasize that US were the most benign and creative empire in the known history, but in long run it has not interest to be hired as a simple world policeman by it`s former enemies and every 'hollow' dollar emited to give bigger and bigger control over it`s national wealth to these who are the main consumer of the produced security. For example EU is the biggest world economy since several years. After it includes as member-states Turkey, Russia, Ukraine (and several other nations from the former USSR) it will have, say in 2050 the population of China, ~60% of the World Gross Product, teritorry several times bigger than US... Tightly connected under treaties like World Trade Org. with its neighbors India, China, Japan, the islamic world, Latin America ... or almost all the population of the world and its productional/consumation abilities --- tell me who will be the client of your enormous planet-wide defence mechanism. And who will pay the US depths, the money spent all these years for the international security...
In that sence such security 'imperialism' oriented economics is not at all suitable for funding and accomplishing any space colonization works.
Whoever is the earth`s global master ( most probably EU !!! ) it shall deal with the domestic terrestrial affairs. The colonisation of the solar system and the space activities in general will be promoted by kinda UN autorities, governmental money spent for exploration programs, the Earth protected from anthropogenic menaces from space ( mega-terrorism by huge astroengineering devices - huge lasers and particle accelerators, deflected asteroids and big interplanetary ships), but the colonization/terraformation will be self-propelled economical activity made for profit by for-profit organisations.
For instance if one wants to mine a NEO for platinum and other valuable metals + volatiles which to sale at LEO for fueling interplanetary manned or unmanned ships and probes, the one hardly ever will choose the US or Europe to register a company, the ships, etc, but the one will lobby in a third or forth world little country or in artificial and new micro-nation totally controled by him, the necesarry legislation - max profit, zero taxes. The terrestrial giantic political entities will be in the position of clients...
Export and bootstrap enough industrial and biospheric capacity off-earth and new powerfull trans-geopolitical players will emerge, non dependent from the earth, except of its value as a market for space goodies: fuel, energy, communication medias and lines, living space... everything...
Any political embargo on these vast resourses imposed by the old empires in order to put the space under economical control in XIX-XX century manner will have so great disadvantages for the power, that such prohibitive measures can not withstand for more than several years...
Offline
Imperial USA?
Yes, 'imperial' in the most soft and possitive sence of the word.
I'm going to challenge that assertion of your.
What we actually have going on inside America is two different world views of man. The two view of man also have two different banking system and concept of wealth and how you arrive at that wealth. The first world view, most of you are familiar with is:
Man is just an evolved beast and can be treated like one. Share holder value determines the market place. Some time referred to as the secrete hand. Gold or money is wealth and other such nonsense. It based around Adam Smith and John Lock of the British economic system of private banking system. Generally supported by Aaron Burr, Jefferson Davis, Rockfellows, Harrimans. That crowd of traders.
The other view of man is that man is in the image of God and therefore important. But, is based around the Liebiniz, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and a national banking system of a sovereign nation state concept. There concept of wealth is the building up of the nation and the increase of the productive of the work force of there nation. Which is an entirely different type of concept of what is wealth than your familiar with. Of this group we have Washington, Lincoln, FDR, John F. Kennedy, etc. You deal with other nations as sovereign over there territory too and you choose to deal with them on that bases.
So there are two concept of what a nation should be. But, currently the group that think of man as a beast is in control and yes the United States is acting like an Empire.
But, I would like see the United States to go back to seeing man in the image of God and dealing with other nation as sovereign nation state of there own territory.
Larry,
Offline
Imperial USA?
Yes, 'imperial' in the most soft and possitive sence of the word.
It's difficult to completely understand the points you are tying to make. A few things really bother me.
You say 'imperial' is the nicest word to mean what the U.S. has done in the world. Leads me to believe you are not entirely happy with the U.S. being and acting as a super power should but that is your opinion.
We now spend money to regulate the legitimate violence activity in the international level??? I don't care if you don't know English well or not, that's absolute horsesh**. Legitimate? You call murdering 3,000 people and destroying two buildings legitimate? There was a child day care center in the lower floors of the World Trade Center, killing innocent children is NOT legitimate. Ever!
The United States is not an empire and has no imperial motivation. IF WE HAD WE COULD RULE THE WORLD AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU OR ALL THE COUNTRIES TOGETHER COULD DO ABOUT IT! The facts show the history of the United States to be one where we are a reluctant super power. We did not want WW2 and we did not want this new fight against terrorism. Both conflicts brought themselves to us by our lack of action and now we are not willing to wait for that to happen from Saddam so we took him out and now the world benefits. The U.S. gets nothing but the cost of the war in lives and dollars. You don't have to respect this. You can stay at home and we will for the most part keep you safe but I personally think you owe a lot of people at least a 'thank you'. The word 'empire' does not sit well with Americans. It stinks of royalty and countries conquered for the sole purpose of using them, stealing their labor and wealth. When has the U.S. ever done this? Even now in Iraq we haven't done this. The U.S. is an empire just as every country is, no more, no less.
Defense contracts are just one part of the overall economy of the USA, one that is certainly NOT defined by defense spending.
EU is becoming the largest economy-Great! I don't mind the economy of the United States taking a backseat to the EU.
Offline
Imperial USA?
Yes, 'imperial' in the most soft and possitive sence of the word.
It's difficult to completely understand the points you are tying to make. A few things really bother me.
You say 'imperial' is the nicest word to mean what the U.S. has done in the world. Leads me to believe you are not entirely happy with the U.S. being and acting as a super power should but that is your opinion.
We now spend money to regulate the legitimate violence activity in the international level??? I don't care if you don't know English well or not, that's absolute horsesh**. Legitimate? You call murdering 3,000 people and destroying two buildings legitimate? There was a child day care center in the lower floors of the World Trade Center, killing innocent children is NOT legitimate. Ever!
The United States is not an empire and has no imperial motivation. IF WE HAD WE COULD RULE THE WORLD AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU OR ALL THE COUNTRIES TOGETHER COULD DO ABOUT IT! The facts show the history of the United States to be one where we are a reluctant super power. We did not want WW2 and we did not want this new fight against terrorism. Both conflicts brought themselves to us by our lack of action and now we are not willing to wait for that to happen from Saddam so we took him out and now the world benefits. The U.S. gets nothing but the cost of the war in lives and dollars. You don't have to respect this. You can stay at home and we will for the most part keep you safe but I personally think you owe a lot of people at least a 'thank you'. The word 'empire' does not sit well with Americans. It stinks of royalty and countries conquered for the sole purpose of using them, stealing their labor and wealth. When has the U.S. ever done this? Even now in Iraq we haven't done this. The U.S. is an empire just as every country is, no more, no less.
Defense contracts are just one part of the overall economy of the USA, one that is certainly NOT defined by defense spending.
EU is becoming the largest economy-Great! I don't mind the economy of the United States taking a backseat to the EU.
My primitive english is fault.
I think you don`t have to bother. Indeed we share one and a same view about US and about the international situtation as it is and as it should be.
1. Believe me I`m ABSOLUTELY HAPPY about that exactly USA are THE superpower. The world would be not so good place if a superpower with other ideology had your capacity. Every other potential super-power is a millennia old cultural entities and too much evel is collected in their history to allow them to be good masters.
2.The terrorism is a crime in almost every legislature. I`m very glad about the way you reacted. The sovereignity of countries which brake the international law and host and finance non-legitimate violence, should deffinitelly be re-regulated by force. Conqwering Iraq, Afganistan, etc. US does exactly what I`m talking about -- you work as world police annihilating the nests of the illegitimate compulsion, and this is entirelly OK.
Please, pay attention about the fact that I`m from Bulgaria - read some news and comments. It occurs that we are one of the most hard and devoted allies of yours there. We also gave hostages-victims, but NEVER in our political space was put on discussion the idea our modest military presence in Iraq or Afganistan to be withdrawn. Spain!, the Phiillipines!... and other big countries obeyed to the terrorists and took back their troops. We stay there. We share YOUR view about the way terrorism should be beaten.
3. The notion about 'imperial USA' is not connected with approval or not of its politics. Yes, US are and act as an empire, but I completelly approve this. Yes, you become an empire not by your will, and your imperial status will not last for more than another several decades, but in this ~1/2 century the world was under the dominance of good super-power -- USA!!! The fact that you don`t want to be a world empire is confirmed by the fact that your former enemies are in better ecionomical situation than you ( in long run) - Japan, Germany... Simply they exploited you saving from their own minimized military expenditures. The process will contineau - you normalized Iraq but the fruits will be picked by the EU, Iraq after 15 years or so, will be neighbour country after including of Turkey in the club. All the direct neighbours will be included in the euro-zone according to EU directive from the last year... The Nortern Africa, Near and Middle east+Iran, Russia... About 90% of the worlds petrol & natural gas stockpile... For example google and read what Berlusconi and other high possitions` italians talk about these topics...
4.The statement that the military establishment is THE determinator of the US economy belongs to Eisenhouer not to me. It is for the 1950`es as in my post. In the fifties for both the USA and USSR was the time for the great governmental expenditures in space, with peak untill you win the lunar competition... Historical fact is that in the period 1945-1990 US and USSR were the two imperial poles in the world geopolitical map. Now Russia is going back in the european family and the emerging new giant is so huge that you automatically take the back seat.
But, this is entirelly off topic -- my thought is that the terrestrial governments and the empires will promote and regulate the space activity, but NO TERRAFORMING or COLONIZATION EFFORT WILL BE FUNDED BY GOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES. The terraforming is matter of juridical regulation of the mars autorities: you name it central martian government or loose network of transplanetary institutions...
Offline
There are really some very strange things that people are learning from late night television. Too many 'Get rich quick' schemes.
Ok I found a link from a reliable source that explains a bit about what I read once. Its]http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1270414,00.html]It's from a big UK national newspaper.
A quote:
In the 70s, the US agreed with Saudi Arabia that Opec oil should be traded in dollars. American governments have since been able to print dollars to cover huge trading deficits, with the further benefit of those dollars being placed in the US money markets. In return, the US allowed the Opec countries to operate a production and pricing cartel.
In 1999, Iran mooted pricing its oil in euros, and in late 2000 Saddam made the switch for Iraqi oil. In early 2002 Bush placed Iran and Iraq in the axis of evil. If the other Opec countries had followed Saddam's move to euros, the consequences for Bush could have been huge. Worldwide switches out of the dollar, on top of the already huge deficit, would have led to a plummeting dollar, a runaway from US markets and dramatic upheavals in the US.
---
If you doubt the source (guardian) then maybe some UK people can say if the guardian is a good source of information or not.
Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Offline
Well im from the the UK and it has to be mentioned that it is AN OPINION. I honestly believe everybody has the right to an opinion and that they must respect others opinion. But I must also mention that this article appears to come from people who where bitterly opposed to the war and that this in a similar statement was used as propaganda against the war.
The war has bitterly divided British public opinion at one stage most people where for what they thought was the right thing to do. But since then with no WMDs found and the continued casualties to British soldiers this has eroded and has almost come to the point of toppling the current british goverment.
It is a little bit Ironic that the current labour goverment is staunchly pro-european and is determined to have Britain join the Euro. If the only reason for the war was to keep the dollar top dog I can truly say they would not have supported the war at all. The gaurdian is also a paper that is not a supporter of the current goverment and there have been numerous spats.
I hope this has been helpful.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
The article makes the same old argument-sigh...-that the war was for oil. Why would the USA need to go to war to get oil when everyone sells it to us and has been for many, many, years? Even while the first gulf war was going on Saddam sold oil to the USA, and afterwards he continued to sell oil to the USA. Why? Because business is business. Oil is the major source of income for arab nations. Why would they reduce their output or refuse to sell to someone? If President Bush wanted Iraq to produce more oil then he could have simply asked the UN to raise it's export limit. So why spend $60 billion and lose 1,000 American lives just to bring the price of oil down a few cents? And the price of gas has risen since the war began! Was our involvement in WW2 just about oil? Korea? Vietnam? Nicaragua? Grenada? Beirut? Somalia? Liberia? Haiti? Some people just can't face the facts.
After 9/11 President Bush was looking for a reason to take Saddam out, after all he did try to kill his father. WMD was the best reason they could come up with. Even so, getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do. What if the USA had attacked Germany in 1939 and taken out Hitler? I'm sure France would have had a lot of bad things to say about us if we did something like that.
Print dollars to cover huge trading defecits??? The USA buys more goods than it sells abroad. These goods are bought by PEOPLE or private businesses who use their own money. When you buy a Toyota do you go to the government and ask for the money? Why would the USA print money to buy foreign goods? This would be the same as a government printing money to pay it's bills and what you get is instant inflation that gets out of control and a dollar that's worth drops to almost nothing.
I'll never understand how people can side with Saddam vs the USA. Have they forgotten history?
Offline
http://www.google.com/search?q=us+empir … e=utf-8]US is an Empire and the new Empire State Building was the World Trade Center.
-
I agree that US may be the best empire in history. But an empire is expensive to run, and it's interests are in optimizing the narrow wants of those who elect the senators. Bush was not elected for his international knowledge.
Offline
Ok, I didn't post that particulair article to proove any points on if the war in Iraq is justified or not. I don't even want to talk about it.
But what I wanted to proove is that it isn't voodoo, that is printing dollars if there were no tomorrow as the dollar is the world currency and the USA has a manufacturing (printing) monopoly for it.
Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Offline
Ok, I didn't post that particulair article to proove any points on if the war in Iraq is justified or not. I don't even want to talk about it.
But what I wanted to proove is that it isn't voodoo, that is printing dollars if there were no tomorrow as the dollar is the world currency and the USA has a manufacturing (printing) monopoly for it.
I also don`t want at all to talk about petrol, empires, curency monopoly, etc...
This is the present geopolitical situation.
After several centuries, when perhubs will be within the mankinds budget to think about terraforming of planets and mass tubeworld construction, the geopolitical, trans-geopolitical and cyberpolitical situation, in general the power 'topology' of the humanity -- will be much much more different. To put into the future the modern 'imperial/hegemonistic' picture, is like discussing the lunar manned missions in the geopolitical frame of, say pre-columbian Europe...
BTW, there are talks following the example of common european currancy, in the next 20-30 years the global financial institutions to introduce kind of world currency. The logic of globalisation, especially the liberalisation of the international movement of goods allong the WTO, inevitably will make quite usefull this trade to be led in universal value equivalent, independent from the national politics. Than the World bank will become kinda World Central Bank... The begining could be simple and invisible measure, for instance fixing the exchange rates of the main currencies of the major and most developed regional unions , at first Europe, North America and Eastern Asia/Pasific... The general trend is that when you begin to give parts of your souvereugnity to international institutions network the process avalanches itself and it is quite non-beneficial to stop or withdraw... See the history of the EU, it started with modest intentions, but evolves rapidly towards federation... The EU legislature acts like a computer virus!
All this is connected with the terraforming Mars or else planet with the idea, that may be after 200-300 years the nation states will be able to finance the space colonisation not more than the single states of USA now... In this respect of quite flexible autority networking, far more diverse and complex than the classical nation state -- it is very improbable that Mars will have ever a 'central government' in manner and structure resembling the XVIII-XXI century USA.
My oppinion is that Mars will be terraformed by the martians, regulated by some autority, credited from the fat old Earth and other huge space settlements -- but I think that the exact political-juridical structure for this is absolutelly unpredictable and it is unwise to regard the political entities as future replicas of US or other nation state. Also, the role of US or EU or China governments will be almost zero compared with the role of the space corporations in the branch.
Offline
http://www.google.com/search?q=us+empir … e=utf-8]US is an Empire and the new Empire State Building was the World Trade Center.
-
I agree that US may be the best empire in history. But an empire is expensive to run, and it's interests are in optimizing the narrow wants of those who elect the senators. Bush was not elected for his international knowledge.
Actually the United States was created a Constitutional Republic and not an Empire.
But, the United States is starting to act like an Empire with all nasty traits of an Empire of invading other countries and stealing there natural resources. Especially the forty years or so. But, under the leadership of George Bush or should I say the leadership of Dick Cheney, this process of transforming the United States into an Empire is very much accelerated and if it not stop soon both the United States and the rest of the world will be destroyed by there arrogance and insane lust for power. Empires are never any good no matter what country becomes one and no matter what kind of leader does it. An empire is a degenerate system of government that steal from everybody. They steal from foreign country at gun point like what the United State is doing in Iraq and they have no problem committing genocide also like we are doing in Iraq. It doesn’t matter if we talking about the British Empire, the Roman Empire, Nazi Germany, Napoleon in France, Stalin in Russia or George Bush in America, Empire are just flat no good, period.
The best thing that America can do for the rest of the world and for there own people is to go back to being a Republic that honors there own Constitution and the principle that they stand for. That when both the Americans people will benefit and the world at large wil also benefit, because we did that.
Larry,
Offline
Stealing their natural resources? You of course have some proof to back up your claim? Probably the old war for oil argument. Sigh...
The United States already has more power over the rest of the world than any nation ever, and if we really wanted to rule the world we could have done it within a month of the USSR's collapse.
Genocide? Again, your proof? If we really wanted to commit genocide a few nukes would have done it, or a few days of B-52's carpet bombing. Or a couple of canisters of nerve gas, we could have said that we bombed Saddam's stockpile and blamed it all on him, yet, those things didn't happen did they? I wonder why? Also, the U.S. marines a few weeks ago just drove away from continued fighting against Al-Sadr's troops even though they are armed militants. Why would they do that? You have no proof and really haven't put any thought into any of your claims. They do not stand up to reason.
American's have sacrificed and accomplished more for the world than any other people. We have invented more, given more in charity and economic aid, sacrificed our sons and daughters in the name of freedom for others. What other country even compares?
Saddam is responsible for the death of over a million yet still you side with him. I bet you have a picture of ol' Saddam by your bedside. Maybe one where he is standing on his balcony with a cigar in his mouth and firing a gun in the air, not caring a bit about the person that bullet comes down upon. Yeah, nice hero for you to worship.
Offline
I thought the topic was about terraforming Mars.
Wrong way go back. :sleep:
Anatoli Titarev
Offline
best thing that America can do for the rest of the world and for there own people is to go back to being a Republic
Even in the old days, the US "Military Industrial Complex" ran an empire. Good sign is that greedy top US corporate executives are being held responsible, and put in jail. If others outside US, had equal opportunity and were equal before the law, then US could not be accused of running an empire. US is stuck with the situation, which is an opportunity to set standards of good behaviour.
-
At least, we can all dream about Mars.
Offline
Mining asteroids? Why? Mining asteriods cannot cover the cost of the missions to get there not to mention building a base and then trying to provide a constant supply of water and food to workers. Too much risk for little to no benefit. We already have enough rocks on the earth, mars doesn't need anymore either.
I'm all for probes visiting asteriods, even human's landing on them for science but mining is just not necessary.
Using thermal spots for energy may be possible.
Mining asteroids is the only economically sound extraterrestrial resourses utilization activity imaginable today:
http://www.neofuel.com/]http://www.neofuel.com/
, and PERMANENT page. Mars lefts to be mined only for local use, cause everithing you need from the Periodical table is present in perfect quantity and distribution and gravitational situation in the asteroids. One martian advantage is its low gravity which means lower gravitational chemical diferentiation, hence bigger quantities of heavy metals could be found near to the surface: uranium, thorium and other industrially fissable for energy elements. For the thorium reactors working under stream of modestly accelerated protons, google for "Rubbia thorium".
The food issue-I doubt that Mars will be competitive for providing the asteroids and the tubeworlds with food, and the acre-per-capita figures are not relevant... Where one doesn`t have gravity to grow complex multicelular plants for food ( cause for the algae and others you need only pressurized gas-bags in micro-g and vacuum) -- just use centrifuged greenhouses: the hydroponical plant nurseries could be amazingly productive - "growth can be speep up threefold by continuous illumination, threefold again by optimizing the light spectrum; and a further threefold by optimizing the CO2 level to ~>2%" - http://www.paulbirch.net]www.paulbirch.net , "Supramundane Planets". Another hard emerging technology is the tissue clonning and growing - instead of growing whole plants` organisms and whole pigs and chickens - in "a vat" the necessary meat or vegetable tissue could be replicated on very low price, thus giving unprecedently rich and diverse dietary opportunities, ( Search: http://www.kurzweilai.net]www.kurzweilai.net ) on prices per tonne compared with the major agricultures: wheet, potatoes...
In that respect , yes, such techs could be used on Mars of course, but perhubs as in the case of the Moon it could appear that it has value only as real estate which to be terraformed and no advantages over the asteroids and the naked vacuum for industry and mining.
To begin terraforming the martians should be enough numerous ( say, some people will contineau to love the planets vs. the luxurous and enormous rotating space colonies, see: http://www.distant-star.com/issue13/jan … fibers.htm , from the "Distant star" electronic magazine) and to be able to collect enough money for their home rework bussiness. A space colony with a tube constructed from diamond ( carbon molecular fibers ) and chosen martan level of rotational pseudogravity inside can have diameter of 7000-8000 km -- far greater than the planetary martian diameter -- and after certain lenght enormous surface housing comfortably billions and billions of humans without areal over-population... THe money for the development of the real estates like Mars, Moon or other planemo, should come from such wealthy societies, which already along the construction of their bigger than worlds homes elaborated methods for mass processing and shipping of quadrillions of tonnes, able to supply volatiles, etc. for the terraformation works. It appears easier to incrementaly build first planetary sized rotating habitats, and after or simultaneously as a byproduct to terraform the planets...
Offline
Dook,
"...IF WE HAD WE COULD RULE THE WORLD AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU OR ALL THE COUNTRIES TOGETHER COULD DO ABOUT IT! ..."; "...If we really wanted to commit genocide a few nukes would have done it, or a few days of B-52's carpet bombing. Or a couple of canisters of nerve gas, we could have said that we bombed Saddam's stockpile and blamed it all on him, yet, those things didn't happen did they? I wonder why? Also, the U.S. marines a few weeks ago just drove away from continued fighting against Al-Sadr's troops even though they are armed militants. Why would they do that? You have no proof and really haven't put any thought into any of your claims. They do not stand up to reason.
American's have sacrificed and accomplished more for the world than any other people. We have invented more, given more in charity and economic aid, sacrificed our sons and daughters in the name of freedom for others. What other country even compares? ..."
I`m VERY glad that in general USA is not continuoiusly ruled by statesmen with such childish, irresponsable, show-off, chauvinistic thinking like yours.
But, this line of conversation is wrong way as Atitatev pointed. We are discussing here Mars terraforming and eventually the political power frames conserning this. Keep the ridiculous and wishfull dreams for world domination for you and please, comment without to offence the entire rest of the mankind that they are unable to rule themselves...
Offline