On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Wayne Bishop <email@example.com> wrote: > Apparently, you have such a one track mind that even putting it first had no > chance of working. Therefore, I'll try one last time with only the item I > consider most important. Try to remember that there are people who need to > be fed NOW. > > Wayne > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Wayne Bishop <firstname.lastname@example.org> > wrote: >> For some reason, you keep missing the most important part so I will put >> that >> first: >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> In your haste to dismiss the science-based portion of my post, you seem to >> have missed the more important, albeit fuzzier, part; >>> The real problem comes with the "anthropogenic" cause and, if so (which >>> is >>> less than certain), appreciably slowing down the process without millions >>> of >>> lives on the line, the great majority of whom would be very poor, >>> nonwhite >>> people who currently are barely eking out a living. A very liberal, >>> progressive concept. >> >> In other words, try to suppress your "denier" ranting and give us your >> recommended global policy. Thanks in advance, >> ------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Wayne Bishop <email@example.com> wrote: > Apparently, you have such a one track mind that even putting it first had no > chance of working. Therefore, I'll try one last time with only the item I > consider most important. Try to remember that there are people who need to > be fed NOW. >
No, you are the one with the one track mind. In my long post
in which I went over much in detail with citations and links and so forth, I answered your questions, every last one of them, including what to do NOW.
Since you want people fed now, and since it's people in the third world who need to be fed now :
With respect to those countries all over the world that have not yet done this:
Take over the big private banks all over the world NOW!
That means the central banks and at least the big commercial private banks if the investment banks as well.
This is because it always has been and always will be about the money and getting what to do paid for. If we don't have the money now, then we cannot do what we need to do now. Period.
And this is not some liberal side issue. This is about what happens to those tons of money that come off the printing presses and the fact that less and less of it is ever going to where it needs to go. For instance in the US before Reagan: About 70% of that money went to the people through the Wall Street economy, to the Main Street Economy, now it's only 30%. Where does all that money go? It stays in the Wall Street economy, where it's just used to make the banks themselves ever richer by computerized "day" trading on the open markets all over the world - stock, bond, commodities, you name it - all over the world. They can make much more money, much more quickly, much more easily doing that than making capital available to Main Street capitalists or would-be capitalists in the form of loans or investments in ideas to expand or start a business. And so it does not matter all that much at all how good the idea is - the Main Street capitalists or would-be capitalists are screwed no matter what (unless they already happen to be very rich and well connected like people like Trump). The vast majority of the growth in the past 30 years in the US actually was in the Wall Street Economy - and it's gotten worse the more recent the years.
So if you want feed people NOW and have the US and all these other countries be part of it, the money that comes out of their central banks needs to go where it need to go to provide the financing to get things done.
Once you have the money, then we do everything I said in my above post - which includes nuclear and natural gas vastly expanding and as much as reasonably possible replacing the burning of coal and oil for electricity in the already developed countries.
This includes China and India. I have read some posts by some Chinese who are very unhappy about the massive increase in coal burning there, unhappy because they are almost literally choking to death on the vast amounts of soot and other pollution in the air. There is going to some very, very serious health consequences for that country with the massive pollution that government is poisoning its people with. That much burning for electricity in a nuclear country is not really necessary. But since they are under a dictatorship, they can't vote a different bunch in.
We also need to ask the question: Are people in the third world starving really because they're not burning coal or oil, or enough coal or oil for electricity? If the money were there from the developed countries via what I just said above, then couldn't just as much electricity be had in other ways. Perhaps not, and so with massive help some lessening of increased coal and oil burning could occur while getting the same amount of electricity.
And part of this help would be not just other sources of electricity generation, but massive world-wide spending in pushing technological growth as fast as possible at trying to make as fast as possible any burning of coal and oil as clean and carbon safe as possible.
It would all be like a vastly larger version of the great amount amount of combined investment and spending from government and partner big corporations of the Marshall Plan after WWII or the vast infrastructure expansion in the US in the 1950s (including the building of the interstate highway system) or the great and fast expansion in the US of technology and all its great side effects in the 1960s that resulted from the race to put a man on the moon as fast as possible.
(The Big Government days in the world and especially the US during the generation after WWII were better days, precisely because of making use of the benefits of Big Government combined with a well financed Main Street economy. But it has all been downhill since the US and so many other countries allowed themselves to be conned by the conservative "the smaller the government the better" lie starting with that great con art.. er... great communicator Reagan in the US.)
Note: Private investment could provide only a tiny fraction of what is need. And it's a conservative lie that government cannot do it right in terms of getting the money to where it needs to go for getting things done as fast as possible. See not only all the examples I gave above, see China and Norway and other countries growing much faster and/or vastly richer than the US in per capita GDP, and see even now this in the US - one of many examples of success (all that media coverage of just that one solar company that partnered with government failing has covered up the fact that many more of them are thriving):
"In a recent New York Times article, Eric Lipton and Clifford Krauss reported that the state of California is experiencing something akin to a solar gold rush on the back of government subsidies. Their article highlights that the increase in state and federal solar energy subsidies is creating a booming clean energy market in the Golden state."
"China's National Energy Administration said investment in solar power generation is expected to reach 250 billion yuan (US$39.5 billion), as part of the country's 12th five-year-plan spanning 2011 to 2015."
That will be about 6% of their nominal GDP at that time. That is huge. And that's just investment.