…on the illusion of cheap oil…
Fridemann,
= > Ilya,
what makes you think that all countries will deal EQUALLY WELL with a changing energy situation?" (Capitalization mine).
Nothing, what makes you think that I think so? May be my incomplete command of English 
I initialy smiled only at your phrase :
“Does anyone think the US can ever solve its energy problem without massive investments in its ailing infrastructure, especially the rail system?”,
Because, in my opinion, this phrase combines a few not necessary related statements in a single sentence, and sounds as an uncontestable fact.
- Does anyone think US can ever solve its energy problem? - I am at least aware of such people, and perhaps I myself close to such the opinion. Much more known person than me is Ridely, the autor of “Rational Optimist” - also belongs to the crazy fellows.
- Will massive investment be needed - Of course it will be needed. Too trivial.
- The US is a country of an ailing infrucstructure – too general a statment, IMO
- Especially ailing part of the US infracstructure is the railing system - may be, I don’t know.
- To solve its energy proplem US should especially invest into its ailing railing system. - In my opinion, not necessarily.
Here, to make it simpler for me, I’ ve just stated my takes, but made not attempt to substantiate my opinions.
In your same post, you also sounded to me as singling the US out of other countries, like it were just the US with the energy problems, and if it had worse chances than others to find its way out. However, later in your posts you clarified in what sense you single the US out ( large distances, style of live, quater of the world oil consumptions) - and with these aspects I agree.
I do not like it myself, that instead of discussing the topics I explain what. IMO, you have said and then what I have said, or enyone else might have said, etc. But, you know, you have prompted me to this, putting first into Blindside’s mouth and than into mine what we have not said. I am less sure about the Chris’ mouth though
I also ironised that you simingly
Now Friedemann, please forgive me for taking it personal, and let me think about your:
“Lower taxes for the rich gives more investment and more jobs? I don’t belive that.”
I don’t know. Perhaps I could believe into this side of it: Higher taxes to the rich transfer more money under the control of goverments. That means, the money becomes (before they are re-destributed and re-invested by their recipents) nobody’s personal property and under nobody’s private control. We all know about the tendency of the bureacracy, and of all us who gets a chance to be employed around, to feed themselves from the government’s money. But who says that the wealth in this case is invested productively?
The problem, as I largely ignorant in this area, see it, is that big goverments are nevertheless needed. They perform lots of vital and important functions, you name them. But I don’t see the goverments as the productive investors of the wealth, nor as the main creators of the productive jobs.
Father, you write: “The rich have profited more than anyone in the last 10 to 15 years in the US. But who says their wealth is invested productively? It seems to me that most of it is saved and invested in financial instruments.”
Perhaps what is “saved and invested in financial instruments” is, just, after all, the money. The same money that, for example, the venure capitalists used to fund the high-tech companies, in the most risky and most productive ways at the same time.
I do not understand those things well. When I studied in Russia, we had know idea about finacial instruments. (But I am happy to hear from others the explanation).
After all, among the most rich people of America is Bill Gates. He has been investing all his effort and money into the most risky, productive and new industry, that continues to create millions of jobs in the USA and over the world.
A Russian paper, published in Toronto and funded by advertisement, is laying before me. It says Bill Gates is the third most rich person on the planet. It says he has given one/third of his wealth to charity during the last five years. One should never trust Russian newspapers.
Coming back to Fridemann’s : “The rich have profited more than anyone in the last 10 to 15 years in the US”. I have read with sympathy and a great interst the book of P. Krugman, “The Liberal Manifesto”. Among many other things, he says the same. But I believe he never says that the rich invest their money non- productively. He may say that they invest money to win the public opinion, fund conservative think tanks etc. He may say that the rich will do well without the public health system (unlike the middle class).
This seems to be the question which will be asked every time once again, and answered every time differently by any new government in every new situation, how to strike the balance between the government money and the private money, in the productive and justice way, but also in a way that allows you to win the election and stay at power. And taxes will always be a part of their, or our, game.
The rich do not just fund conservative think tanks. Most of the "liberal " think tanks, environmental organizations etc. are funded by rich people. I would think that more of them fund the latter than the former. Sort of the Lev Tolstoi syndrome, or the impulse that caused Russian and other European bourgeois to fund revolutionaries and terrorists at the end of the 19th century.
Steve,
I don’t know if you do a lot of French listening activities. But if so, what do you listen to?
@ Steve,
I agree Steve. Perhaps those rich hope they will still be able to visit a private psychoanalist when everyone around is liberal. OR., they may be frightened with the Global Warming.
The most rich Russian who funded Lenin and the Bolshevicks before the revolution was named Svva Morozov. I do not remeber details, but it looks like all his property had been confiscated after the revolution, but Lenin personally took care to let Savva abroad alive.
No Ilya, it is more about posturing, wanting to be seen to be “progressive,” like the film stars, whose private lives are not so admirable but who feel they can lecture the world on how to behave.
Friedemann,
I don’t have time for French. It comes after Russian, Portuguese, Spanish, Korean, Italian and German ( if and when I have time). A few years back I was enjoy French audio books, Balzac and Proust. The latter is painful to read, but a delight to listen to.
I was enjoying French audio books…
I confused all about Savva Morozov, and beg your pardon for this offtopic.
Savva Morozove had funded the Lenin’s party only until the first Russian revolution, which happened 1905. During that revolution, in spite of outstanding for the time working conditions that Morozov had created for the workers on his family factory, the workers had gone on strike. As a result Morozov suffered psycho symptoms, went abroad to Kanns and shot himself dead in 1905.
Lenin always highly valued the financial help of Savva. Soon after the Bolshevicks revolution of 1917, Lenin adopted a mansion in the countryside, called later Leninskie Gorky, as his dacha. Before the revolution, the mansion belonged to Savva’s family, but upon the revolusion it was confiscated, of course. Lenin ordered to take care of the furnature and and the property of the mansion, ‘in honor of Savva Morozov’.
This text about Savva shows what may happen to any liberal, myself included:
…"There were asphalt roads in the factory workers’ village, a very good library and theatre, plus a choir. Savva Morozov was greatly respected by the workers, despite being very strict, with a demand for discipline and proper work. He also abhorred smoking, and forbade the workers to do so.
Nonetheless, despite all the good he did for his workers, they came out on strike, demanding an 8-hour work day and higher pay. Morozov was prepared to meet their demands, yet he was not the sole owner of the factory. So he asked his mother to transfer to him all rights to the factory. Not only did she refuse, though, but she even had him completely removed from factory management. His mother then went on to threaten him, saying she could have him committed as a mental case. The Medical committee came out with the verdict — Savva Morozov was suffering from acute nervous exhaustion. It was recommended he go abroad to treat his nerves and depression. Savva Morozov went to Cannes. There, at a Hotel, on May 13th 1905 he shot himself. He was but 43".
http://english.ruvr.ru/2009/06/25/266829.html
No it may not happen to me. I am but poor liberal, not rich. 
That is indeed a classic documentary. The same fellow was involved in making the documentary “The Corporation”. Also a good watch.
@blindside and friedemann
About the “why should I give anyone my hard-earned money” point. It is true that one consequence of a system of social welfare is that some people will receive benefits and use those benefits in a way that most people disapprove of. However, I don’t think that’s a particularly strong argument against having a system of social welfare.
But the US does not seem to have a great deal of solidarity across its population. People may not want to share benefits across the whole society. I also remember the stories back in the day of the “welfare queen” riding around in her Cadillac at the taxpayer’s expense. That seems to have been more of a fantasy than anything, but some people seem to imagine that there are vast legions of high-living poor being subsidized by working people.
I’m not American though, so it’s not really my business what kind of social welfare system they have. If they want to get rid of medicare/medicaid and social security and food stamps and whatever else, then that’s their business.
But I certainly hope that Europe doesn’t give up its commitment to social welfare.
Personally, I don’t know anyone who has gone to the US for treatment. I haven’t seen the statistics tho, so I don’t know how common it is.
If someone is allowed to buy health services, then that means that someone else who is in more medical need but who has less money will not be able to receive that health service. If it can been shown that wealthy people can jump the queue and buy services without adversely affecting the rest of the population, then I have no objection to it.
As for the environment, I am scared silly by the threat of climate change. I accept that it is happening and that humans are a major, perhaps the primary, cause. I accept that because that is what the vast, overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists say, regardless of the enthusiasm/blindness of environmental activists.
Frankly, I suspect that a lot of activists would be out there screaming “the sky is falling” whether it was or not. But it appears that, in this case, it actually is falling. I’m not a climate scientist, so when 99.9% of the world climate scientists tell me that they very strongly think that something is the case, I’m inclined to believe them.
As for the depletion of non-renewable resources, that is a also a big problem, and both Friedemann and Steve have given me a new viewpoint about that. Steve points out that it is selfish of us to use up resources that may be needed in the future for different purposes - a point that I hadn’t considered. And Friedemann has made me realize the extent to which our economy is carbon-based and the extent of the problems that will result if we don’t hurry up and become far less carbon-dependent.
And of course, being currently within driving distance of a possible nuclear meltdown has made me even less enthusiastic about the nuclear option.
There’s no doubt though that we are spoiled in Canada. We have a small population and a vast resource base - more than we could ever need. But energy and the environment are global concerns - and for that reason I don’t think it’s inappropriate to talk about the energy and environmental policies of other countries. Nature doesn’t notice national boundaries, so we all have to work together on this.
Why would you feel that you should have a say in whether another person pays for health services?
If you buy shoes does that mean that another person cannot buy shoes? Why do you assume that health services are in finite supply?
In Europe there is more flexibility, more choice, lower cost, and better outcomes than in Canada, and theirs is also a universal coverage system.
Health services are life and death. If someone can buy a heart transplant, then someone else who needs it more may end up dying.
I agree that systems like that in France seem to do a better job than ours does. As I said, I have no problem changing the system as long as the outcomes don’t get worse.
I am suspicious of health care reformers in Canada though because I think that there are people who would rather we have a system like they have in the US rather than like a European system.
Bortrun, there is no reason that one person having a heart transplant means another person won’t have one. The supply of doctors and equipment determines whether procedures are available. In efficient systems in Europe they have more doctors and more equipment, and shorter waiting periods, and they have private hospitals, more flexible insurance schemes for better service etc.
The fact that you are suspicious of health care reformers is your problem. Most health reformers in Canada recognize that our system is bad, one of the worst in the OECD according to third party assessments. It is also unsustainable. I don’t think people look to the US which spends more and gets less. They look to France, Sweden, Switzerland or Japan. I suggest you get informed.