Alain--
You wrote:
The problem is that it is killing incentive, and blocking innovations,
enforcing conformism, preventing entrepreneur to focus on their business, and
too much focusing on fiscal questions.
US have similar problems of conservatism, innovation blockage, among which
LENR, but it is less general.
The root cause of all these problems is that the government (conservative and
liberal) is in bed with big business that wants to maintain a lock on its
business and maintain profits. The “Nuclear Village” in Japan is a good
example of how this arrangement causes problem for the environment and safety
of the people.
I agree with your assessment completely.
Bob Cook
From: Alain Sepeda
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:52 AM
To: Vortex List
Subject: Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
The socialism (some explain that Gaulism is right-winged socialism, a kind of
paternalist state, while pink socialism is maternalism) have some success,
especially in place were state is quite efficient and people experienced to
regulation (french entrepreneur can survive in very complex regulation).
The problem is that it is killing incentive, and blocking innovations,
enforcing conformism, preventing entrepreneur to focus on their business, and
too much focusing on fiscal questions.
US have similar problems of conservatism, innovation blockage, among which
LENR, but it is less general.
Today the mother-state have succeed in pushing our youth into depression (>60%
18-35 thinking they will live worse than their parents, and ready for a
revolution),
anyway state is not all, and entrepreneur are used to run 100m race with
concrete shoes. The day we remove just one of that shoe (many french succeed
today in silicon valley), they will be top athlete.
2014-02-26 20:12 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>:
From: Bob Cook
>> The only way the USA could have achieved the same
reliable nuclear program as France did is essentially with Socialism, and a
national policy for nuclear. Having coal made that policy impossible here –
so we did not do that, and now the cost of nuclear is through the roof.
* We did not need Socialism and we had a national policy for nuclear
in the Price Anderson Act which was only partial Socialism.
* All we needed were good regulations for the reactor design part of
nuclear and for the economics of the public utilities that thought Nuclear
was the best invention, since sliced bread; regulations that mandated
simple, small design that used components that could be made by a dozen
vendors and could be assembled in 2 years or less.
Well, Bob - that would pretty much be the definition of the kind of modern
socialism which I am referring to and which France enjoys today. NYT had a
good article on this recently. The French are happier and healthier than we
are in the USA even without oil and other resources. Isn’t “happiness” what
it is all about?
Modern socialism is top-down in planning - but often depends entirely on
heavily controlled capitalism for the implementation. Best of both worlds if
you can keep politicians out of the planning stage.
This type of Socialism was already embedded in the policies of FDR which got
us out of the Great Depression, and should have accomplished, in Energy,
what the Canadian form of Socialism did for them - with their nuclear effort
– the CANDU.
This is the only sane basic reactor design ever built, due to use of natural
U, and it should have implemented here as well. A joint North American
effort would improved the end product for both countries due to financial
and R&D input from the USA in the sixties and seventies – EXCEPT we wanted
to enrich uranium for the Cold War.
Thus, everyone suffers today to some degree - instead of benefiting from
what “could have been” had we jointly built a CanAm “CAMDU” here using the
kind of modularity you speak of.
