Not to be sarcastic, but probably yes. Money from bitumin brings money
for research into environmental remediation. It also helps liberate
people from pouring cash into the OPEC world, which seems to only
inflame Muslim passions. Plus the Canadians are world class
technologists and will likely invent more efficient engines, and also
fund the green technologies that you crave. Theres a reason why poor
nations do not do technology well.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Nov 7, 2013 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
Those plucky Canadians -- as you term them -- are criminally destroying
vast swaths of Alberta turning it into a poisoned chemical saturated
moonscape as well as sucking up vast amounts of water from other
potential uses -- including agriculture. Will the bitumen sweated out
of that sand be worth the ultimate costs to get it?
On Thursday, November 7, 2013 11:24 AM, Jesse Mazer
<laserma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:50 AM, <spudboy...@aol.com> wrote:Fur
sure, that was the truth. Now we got's shale gas, which seems to pay a
lot better, is safer to go after, and is cleaner, carbon-wise. Unless
you are buying into technological unemployment (robots, software) then
we have to face the fact. BHO's Keynesian way has fallen on its ass and
has stayed down, like a fighter throwing a fight, after a payoff.
I've read Keynesians like Paul Krugman say that the level of stimulus
was actually not enough by Keynesian standards (and too much went to
tax cuts), but certainly the US economy with its level of stimulus did
much better than most of the states that more thoroughly rejected
Keynesianism and instead chose austerity in the midst of a recession,
like the UK...see various graphs
at http://graphsagainstausterity.tumblr.com/ (click on any graph to see
the original article it came from)
Increased government employment doesn't seem to generate tax revenue
very well.
Except government employment hasn't increased under Obama, it's
actually been steadily decreasing during his presidency (apart from a
brief spike when the decennial census was taken and they needed a lot
of temporary census workers), due mostly to the Republicans in
Congress, whereas under George W. Bush government employment was
steadily increasing (this collapsing of the public sector is probably
contributing quite a bit to the slow recovery). See the two graphs
showing private sector and public sector jobs under Bush and Obama here:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2013/04/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs-bush-and-obama.html
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop
receiving emails from it, send an email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.to post to this group,
send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.Visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
