Remember me
▼ Content

carbon footprint



Page 4 of 5<<<2345>
07-06-2019 10:13
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
So the govt can print treasuries willy nilly when they need money but the can't print cash instead. At least if they printed money they wouldn't have to pay interest on it. The interest is killing us.
Or, instead of printing money and sending it to china to pay off the treasuries, could the treasury print money and buy the treasuries the fed owns and then the fed could send the money to china to buy chinese treasuries. That would be a case of "the worm turning".
The worm needs to turn. It's going to get a sunburn.
I'd be glad to transport the cash from the treasury to the fed, in a 737Max.

I know, i know, the fed and the treasury are in the same town.
Edited on 07-06-2019 10:14
07-06-2019 15:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
James___ wrote: All that is is racism.

You're a Marxist. All you know how to say is "You're a racist!" because you can't otherwise compete in a forum of ideas.

There's nothing racist about respecting an original.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-06-2019 15:53
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: All that is is racism.

You're a Marxist. All you know how to say is "You're a racist!" because you can't otherwise compete in a forum of ideas.

There's nothing racist about respecting an original.



You weren't respecting Jackie Robinson. You were mocking him. That's all you have.
07-06-2019 16:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
James___ wrote: You weren't respecting Jackie Robinson. You were mocking him. That's all you have.


Fortunately for me I never signed any papers naming you my spokesperson. I am the only person speaking for me.

There was nothing racist in my singling out Jackie Robinson as the original black athlete in MLB. The key word was "original."

There was, however, everything racist and hateful in your response. Your intention was clearly to misrepresent my position and to try to assign devious motives to me because you are a Marxist and that's what Marxists do. You are a brain-dead moron who cannot compete in a forum of ideas so you do the one thing you know how to do and that is to reduce the conversation to petty insults, i.e. drag it down to your level and bring the discussion to the gutter.

Don't you have WACKY violations of physics you need to be pushing? Shouldn't you be spending your time whining about how you are a victim and how the government should be handing you everybody else's cash?


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-06-2019 18:37
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
How do you have time for this? I bet you're the owner and you sit in your office overlooking Boeing while every one else i working. Just joking.
Seriously,
I understand my understanding of heat transfer (heat is the transfer) but i don't understand what understanding of heat that doesn't comport with thermal insulation from greenhouse gasses.
I just don't get it!
What do you think about Boeing and the 737Max?


GHGs aren't insulation. There is no greenhouse, not even sure why they chose that word. A greenhouse is a container, limits air flow. The atmosphere can expand and contract, like anything else heated, or cooled. There is way too little CO2 to form any kind of barrier, even if had special properties. Insulation doesn't discriminate, or only work one way. An insulated container can keep it's containents hot or cold, compared to the outside temperature. If GHGs work like insulation, the would also keep the thermal energy from getting to the surface, to cause the catastrophic warming in the first place.
07-06-2019 18:47
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
Harvey,
The key is that incoming EMR is at visible light wavelength and the outgoing is at infrared wavelength. The COs molecule is a size that retards the IR but not the visible. Think of big slow waves on the ocean that don't disturb a seagull but small rapid waves would. This is a sloppy analogy but it made the point to me when i heard it.
07-06-2019 19:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
So the govt can print treasuries willy nilly

I don't 3d printing is capable of such large structures yet.
keepit wrote:
when they need money

Printing treasuries costs money. 3d printing of something large is expensive.
keepit wrote:
but the can't print cash instead.

They actually just say it exists. Money these days is mostly in the form of bits, not paper.
keepit wrote:
At least if they printed money they wouldn't have to pay interest on it.

They do though, even though it's not called interest. Printing too much money causes inflation. Prices rise for the government just as they do for everyone else.
keepit wrote:
The interest is killing us.

No, it has already killed us. The U.S. government is broke.
keepit wrote:
Or, instead of printing money and sending it to china to pay off the treasuries,

Treasuries are not bills or debt. They are places to put money or wealth in, like a large box.
keepit wrote:
could the treasury print money and buy the treasuries the fed owns and then the fed could send the money to china to buy chinese treasuries.

Why should they buy their own boxes? Why should they buy Chinese boxes?
keepit wrote:
That would be a case of "the worm turning".

I assume you mean to print cash and use that to pay off the debt owed to China. That would destroy both economies through a cash crash. Hyperinflation would result in both economies.
keepit wrote:
The worm needs to turn. It's going to get a sunburn.

No Sun for this worm. It's hiding in the dark.
keepit wrote:
I'd be glad to transport the cash from the treasury to the fed, in a 737Max.

They don't need aircraft.
keepit wrote:
I know, i know, the fed and the treasury are in the same town.

The Fed is in many towns. The board meets in Washington DC. The Fed prints the money. The federal treasury building contains offices for people to manage the government's share of it. They don't print money.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-06-2019 19:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: All that is is racism.

You're a Marxist. All you know how to say is "You're a racist!" because you can't otherwise compete in a forum of ideas.

There's nothing racist about respecting an original.



You weren't respecting Jackie Robinson. You were mocking him. That's all you have.


That is not racism.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-06-2019 19:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
ITN,
How do you have time for this? I bet you're the owner and you sit in your office overlooking Boeing while every one else i working. Just joking.
Seriously,
I understand my understanding of heat transfer (heat is the transfer) but i don't understand what understanding of heat that doesn't comport with thermal insulation from greenhouse gasses.
I just don't get it!
What do you think about Boeing and the 737Max?


GHGs aren't insulation. There is no greenhouse, not even sure why they chose that word. A greenhouse is a container, limits air flow. The atmosphere can expand and contract, like anything else heated, or cooled. There is way too little CO2 to form any kind of barrier, even if had special properties. Insulation doesn't discriminate, or only work one way. An insulated container can keep it's containents hot or cold, compared to the outside temperature. If GHGs work like insulation, the would also keep the thermal energy from getting to the surface, to cause the catastrophic warming in the first place.


Real greenhouses indeed work by reducing heat. The limit convective heating. They still allow for radiant heating and conductive heating. Thus, sunlight can still be absorbed in a greenhouse, and the interior of a greenhouse still puts out a lot of radiance because of it, but by reducing convective heating to the outside, you can reach higher daytime temperatures in a greenhouse (or a closed car on a sunny day).

When the Sun goes down of course, the greenhouse (or car) will continue to lose all that accumulated thermal energy to the outside. By just an hour or so, temperatures will have essentially equalized to outside air temperature. It's why you don't have to wait for the car to cool off when you get into during the evening or nighttime hours. Greenhouses are the same way.

The Earth absorbs all of its energy by radiant heat. It loses all of its energy by radiant heat. Assuming the Sun's output stays the same, and assuming Earth's distance to it remains the same, these two values are equal. The temperature of the Earth stays the same, regardless of how much CO2 there is, how much water there is, how much methane there is, etc.

Only half the Earth receives sunlight. It is radiating into space, however, 24 hours a day from all points on the Earth.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-06-2019 19:35
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
ITN,
It seems that many times you argue the details (legitimately) but ignore the point of the statement.
How say you?
Edited on 07-06-2019 19:48
07-06-2019 19:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
The key is that incoming EMR is at visible light wavelength and the outgoing is at infrared wavelength. The COs molecule is a size that retards the IR but not the visible. Think of big slow waves on the ocean that don't disturb a seagull but small rapid waves would. This is a sloppy analogy but it made the point to me when i heard it.


Most of the energy from the Sun is infrared. Most of that reaches the surface to warm it. Those photons are destroyed by absorption.

Because the surface is warmer than absolute zero, it converts thermal energy into electromagnetic energy. It has radiance. All mass above absolute zero has radiance.

The atmosphere too has mass. It also can absorb and emit light, just like the surface. It too has radiance.

In all cases, that radiance is proportional to the temperature of that object.

Air does have a 'surface' to radiate from. Being a gas, the radiance is thin, but it's there. The warmer the air (or any part of it), the greater the radiance, just like with the surface.

radiance = Boltzmann constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4.

There is no frequency term for this equation. The color of light makes no difference to total radiance. Radiance is in watts per square meter of surface area (yes, air has a 'surface area'. Otherwise CO2 couldn't absorb infrared light!). Temperature is in deg K. Everything else is a constant.

By assuming that one color of light comes in to heat the Earth, yet another color of light cannot radiate and thereby warm the Earth, is to introduce a new term in the Stefan Boltzmann law for frequency. This is changing the equation, effectively denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light. Earth's surface emits a wide band of infrared light. It is also in contact with its atmosphere. The surface heats the atmosphere primarily by conductive heating. It can also heat it by radiance, emitting infrared light that CO2 can absorb. CO2 absorption of surface infrared is just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere. In all cases, this takes energy out of the surface, cooling it.

Heated CO2 radiates just like all other gases in the air. It is dim, but it is there. It is still colder than the surface that heated it. It cannot be used to heat the surface even further.

Absorption of infrared light by CO2 does not warm the Earth. It only warms the CO2. It's just another way for the surface to cool itself by heating the atmosphere above it.

ALL of it radiates into space.

CO2 cannot in turn heat the already warmer surface.

Radiance increases with temperature. There is no frequency term to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Radiance is the same regardless of the composition of the material radiating. It is not possible to reduce radiance and raise the temperature at the same time.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-06-2019 20:03
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
ITN,
The govt isn't broke. It has a cash flow problem which it solves by "printing" money. So far so good.
We can't pay off the national debt by increasing taxes because the economy would go kaput (good for global warming). It can't decrease govt spending enough because the economy would go kaput (good for global warming), but it can print money.
Maybe someday it is going to have to sell some stuff. It has plenty of stuff.

Don't panic.
Edited on 07-06-2019 20:18
07-06-2019 20:17
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
For example, visible light can get through the greenhouse gasses and heat the earth yet gamma rays can't get to earth and heat it.
I don't know how to plug that fact into SB, do you?
07-06-2019 20:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
It seems that many times you argue the details (legitimately) but ignore the point of the statement.
How say you?


I argue the point of the statement. If I have already argued the point of the statement and an argument of the stone is being made, I'll pick over details.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-06-2019 20:30
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
What is an "argument of the stone"?
07-06-2019 20:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
The govt isn't broke.

It is broke.
keepit wrote:
It has a cash flow problem which it solves by "printing" money. So far so good.

Nope. That is not wealth. That is paper and bits. Printing too much money only causes inflation. The government has to pay the higher prices, same as everyone else.
keepit wrote:
We can't pay off the national debt by increasing taxes because the economy would go kaput

That is called a tax crash.
Leaving the debt go unpaid is a debt crash.
Printing your way out of the problem is a cash crash.

They are out of options.
keepit wrote:
(good for global warming)

Define 'global warming'. Please describe why misery is desirable.
keepit wrote:
It can't decrease govt spending enough because the economy would go kaput

No, actually the economy would improve...a lot. More wealth would be directed to productive uses, rather than unproductive government.
keepit wrote:
(good for global warming),

Define 'global warming'.
keepit wrote:
but it can print money.

Yes, at the risk of causing a cash crash.
keepit wrote:
Maybe someday it is going to have to sell some stuff. It has plenty of stuff.

You are speaking of bankruptcy of the Fed itself. If it comes to that, do you really think the dollar will be worth anything?
keepit wrote:
Don't panic.

There is no need to panic, but there is need to prepare. Such economic storms can be weathered, devastating though they are. It will not happen in the very near future, but it will happen, probably by 2035. That's the point where the economic condition of the United States government will be obvious to everybody due to the bankruptcy of large programs forecast to occur around that time, and there will be no way out.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-06-2019 20:59
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
The key is that incoming EMR is at visible light wavelength and the outgoing is at infrared wavelength. The COs molecule is a size that retards the IR but not the visible. Think of big slow waves on the ocean that don't disturb a seagull but small rapid waves would. This is a sloppy analogy but it made the point to me when i heard it.


Most of the energy from the Sun is infrared. Most of that reaches the surface to warm it. Those photons are destroyed by absorption.

Because the surface is warmer than absolute zero, it converts thermal energy into electromagnetic energy. It has radiance. All mass above absolute zero has radiance.

The atmosphere too has mass. It also can absorb and emit light, just like the surface. It too has radiance.

In all cases, that radiance is proportional to the temperature of that object.

Air does have a 'surface' to radiate from. Being a gas, the radiance is thin, but it's there. The warmer the air (or any part of it), the greater the radiance, just like with the surface.

radiance = Boltzmann constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4.

There is no frequency term for this equation. The color of light makes no difference to total radiance. Radiance is in watts per square meter of surface area (yes, air has a 'surface area'. Otherwise CO2 couldn't absorb infrared light!). Temperature is in deg K. Everything else is a constant.

By assuming that one color of light comes in to heat the Earth, yet another color of light cannot radiate and thereby warm the Earth, is to introduce a new term in the Stefan Boltzmann law for frequency. This is changing the equation, effectively denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light. Earth's surface emits a wide band of infrared light. It is also in contact with its atmosphere. The surface heats the atmosphere primarily by conductive heating.
It can also heat it by radiance, emitting infrared light that CO2 can absorb. CO2 absorption of surface infrared is just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere. In all cases, this takes energy out of the surface, cooling it.


CO2 absorbtion of surface infrared ...heats the atmosphere. Surface cools but CO2 warms. No energy lost. then CO2 radiates back to the earth. Meanwhille, back at the ranch, the sun keeps pouring heat in. Temp goes up.


Heated CO2 radiates just like all other gases in the air. It is dim, but it is there. It is still colder than the surface that heated it. It cannot be used to heat the surface even further.

Absorption of infrared light by CO2 does not warm the Earth. It only warms the CO2. It's just another way for the surface to cool itself by heating the atmosphere above it.

ALL of it radiates into space.

CO2 cannot in turn heat the already warmer surface.

Radiance increases with temperature. There is no frequency term to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Radiance is the same regardless of the composition of the material radiating. It is not possible to reduce radiance and raise the temperature at the same time.
07-06-2019 21:04
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
It's not broke. Having a cash flow problem is not being broke, at least not in the US.
I don't want to stoop to being offensive but you are not as good at economics as you think.
07-06-2019 21:06
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
I'm not speaking of the bankruptcy of the Fed. I doubt it is legally possible for the fed to go bankrupt.
07-06-2019 21:08
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
The govt isn't out of options. It has many.
07-06-2019 21:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
For example, visible light can get through the greenhouse gasses and heat the earth yet gamma rays can't get to earth and heat it.
I don't know how to plug that fact into SB, do you?


The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not describe absorption.

Gamma rays do reach the Earth. They don't reach the surface. They are absorbed by the atmosphere, just like x rays and most UV rays.

Absorption of higher frequencies of light do not cause heating, since they do not convert to thermal energy. Absorption of these frequencies generally causes chemical reactions instead, or direct ionization.

Absorption of UV-B light by oxygen, for example, causes a chemical reaction that converts the oxygen into ozone. This is an endothermic reaction, cooling the air. It is why the tropopause is cooler than the stratosphere above it. This is where this occurs.

Visible light doesn't cause much heating either. It generally causes chemical reactions. An example is your ability to see (a chemical reaction), and the ability of plants to absorb sunlight to produce carbohydrates from lower energy chemicals such as CO2 and water.

Infrared light, when absorbed, is converted into thermal energy. This is the primary color that heats the surface, the atmosphere, the greenhouses, etc.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law describes radiance due to thermal energy. There is more than one way to generate light. Thermal energy is only one of them. It is the way an incandescent bulb or a glowing ember generates light that you can see (visible light).

ALL substances above absolute zero are generating light. Most of it is in a color you cannot see without the use of instruments. The Stefan-Boltzmann law combines all frequencies of the radiating object. It does not describe absorption.

Emissivity, a measured constant in the equation, describes the ability of a surface to absorb or radiate, as compared to an ideal black body.

To measure the emissivity of a surface, you must first accurately know it's temperature so you can compare what you measure to an ideal black body of the same temperature.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-06-2019 21:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
What is an "argument of the stone"?


This is a logical fallacy that results when one discards an argument without cause or counter-argument.

A valid cause includes finding the argument itself is a fallacy.

Logic is a closed functional system, like mathematics. It has formal proofs, is capable of prediction, etc. just like mathematics. It uses equations just like mathematics (though the notation may be a bit strange to some). It operates within a set of fixed rules, just like mathematics, called axioms.

A fallacy is an error in logic, just like an arithmetic error is an error in mathematics. For each and every fallacy, they all revert to some illegal equation.

The illegal equation of the argument of the stone fallacy is: A->!A


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-06-2019 21:19
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
Has it occurred to you that you have the "argument of the stone"?
07-06-2019 21:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
It's not broke. Having a cash flow problem is not being broke, at least not in the US.

It is broke. Printed dollars are not an asset. They are a liability. Debt is not an asset. It is a liability. Excessive taxes will cause a revolt and a tax crash.
keepit wrote:
I don't want to stoop to being offensive but you are not as good at economics as you think.

You are stooping to being offensive.

Economics is simple. It is simply the activity of buying and selling. It is the activity of trading wealth and producing wealth. That really is all there is to it.

The government trades in wealth but it does not produce it. The wealth it has to trade is less than it's liabilities. That means the balance shows they owe more than their assets. This is what the balance sheet of the federal government currently shows. They are broke.

Remember, money is not wealth. It is a representation of wealth and a unit of accounting, that's all.

As long as they print no more money than the amount of wealth being created in the economy, that's ok. Prices stay the same. If they print too much money, that's inflation. There isn't enough wealth being created to absorb the new dollars, so prices necessarily go up. The value of the dollar falls against commodity value.

Since 1920, the value of the dollar has fallen to 1.25 cents of that dollar, all directly caused by the printing of money. What a dollar bought then costs 80 dollars today, on average. The ONLY mitigating factor is the creation of wealth, that only a capitalistic system can do, and that this inflation has taken place over many years.

There will come a time when the government will be forced to pay for some major programs in danger of collapsing. They have three ways to do it:

Borrow the money. Borrowing money requires paying people lending it to you to entice them to buy. You are paying them to borrow it. That's what interest rates are. The price of money itself.

If you borrow too much, you run out of lenders. It's a pyramid scheme. You have to pay higher interests to bring in more lenders willing to take that risk. If there aren't any, you are out of luck. That avenue is closed to you.

Tax the people. A tax is theft of wealth. If you tax people too much, you are stealing more wealth out of the economy to sustain your own problems. People don't like theft. Taxes that are too high will stall economic activity and cause revolts, forcing you out of power.

Print the money. This seems fine on the surface, but it does mean the value of the dollar is going to drop, since you are printing more than the wealth being created.. You just chase yourself into the ground because you have to pay the higher prices just as everybody else does. Printing more money to cover your ass for this only sticks your ass further out in the breeze, so to speak. Eventually, people will lose faith in that money. It will become worthless as they turn to using something else for money. Again, the government loses power. They cannot force people to use a particular type of money.

The federal government is ALREADY out of options. Their path is committed. It cannot be changed now. The result is inevitable. Their only choice now is how to cause the crash.

This isn't like the crash of 2000 or the crash of 2008. This is a devastating crash that will force the government out of power. The intertwining loans from bank to bank will force other nations to reconcile their own economic problems. This crash will be worldwide. It will be total. It will force the acceptance of a new type of money worldwide. All nations but one are printing money. All nations but that one will be involved. That single nation is Iran.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-06-2019 21:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
I'm not speaking of the bankruptcy of the Fed. I doubt it is legally possible for the fed to go bankrupt.


I am. And it is possible for any central bank, including the Fed, to go bankrupt. It's not a legal thing. It is an economic state. Bankruptcy laws are about how to write off the resulting debts in an organized fashion. There is no organized fashion if a central bank defaults.

It means people that loaned the government money will not be paid. The value of the bonds they hold will become worthless. Most of those people are you and me, in the form of pension funds, IRAs, and other retirement plans. Sure China gets screwed too, but big deal.

It means the dollar will become worthless. The value of commodities will skyrocket. Hyperinflation is a very real possibility. The ONLY way out of this is to switch to a different money.

It means anyone dependent on government money won't get paid. Those services must vanish. Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, will all disappear. What will those people do? Riot? Take to the streets? Attack the hand that no longer feeds them? Flee to another nation more economically secure at the moment? Considering the number of people dependent on these three programs alone, this is not a pretty scenario.

When will this happen? No one knows. It will very probably happen before 1935, since several large government programs will be bankrupt by then (including social security).

Triggers like this are notoriously hard to predict. Afterwards, many people discuss the trigger, rather than the cause, assuming the trigger point to be the cause. This has been a habit of many a historian across the years.

Currently, the federal government seems to be favoring a cash crash. Just printing the money and artificially keeping interest rates low. This path will create bubble economies based on speculation rather than productivity, and the resulting crashes that stem from them. This will likely be the pattern, with the boom-bust cycle getting progressively shorter, until the final bust.

The question is: How long can they keep it up?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 07-06-2019 21:59
07-06-2019 22:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
The govt isn't out of options. It has many.

No, it doesn't. Read the other post where I detail this.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-06-2019 22:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
Has it occurred to you that you have the "argument of the stone"?


Fallacy fallacy. Void argument fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-06-2019 23:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
[quote]keepit wrote:
CO2 absorbtion of surface infrared ...heats the atmosphere. Surface cools but CO2 warms. No energy lost. then CO2 radiates back to the earth. Meanwhille, back at the ranch, the sun keeps pouring heat in. Temp goes up.[quote]
CO2 cannot in turn heat the already warmer surface.

You are again ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-06-2019 23:32
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
ITN,
It's your buzzword (stone).
There has to be some inflation in the system to make it go.
You're more hysterical about the economy than i am about global warming.
When you string together a bunch of vague opinions to form a conclusion it becomes hard to understand. I'm being polite here in my words.
07-06-2019 23:34
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
ITN,
You are ignoring that the second law has local and temporal variations.
07-06-2019 23:38
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
ITN,
I admit that you might be right eventually but you might be wrong. But you sound so sure of your opinions and that is wrong. I might be wrong about global warming. We'll see.
There are variations in the rate of inflation through time.
So far so good.
It does depend on the rest of the world trusting the dollar, so far so good.
07-06-2019 23:48
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
I think the outcome depends upon mistakes made by world leaders as much as it depends on pure economics.
Besides, where is the inflation that you speak of. I hope you don't give your disbelief of evidence as evidence of your viewpoint.
08-06-2019 00:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
keepit wrote: ITN, You are ignoring that the second law has local and temporal variations.


No, it doesn't. From Politiplex Science References


The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

At any given time in any given closed system there is a certain quantity of energy with the potential to accomplish work while the remainder of the energy is unable to accomplish work and is called the system's entropy.

Energy(T) = Work_Potential_Energy(T) + Entropy(T)

Every time energy changes form per the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, which includes work being accomplished, the quantity of work-potential energy decreases and the system's entropy increases:

Per the 1st Law of Thermodynamics:

Energy(T) = Energy(T+1)

Work_Potential_Energy(T) + Entropy(T) = Work_Potential_Energy(T+1) + Entropy(T+1)



However, per the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics:

Work_Potential_Energy(T) >= Work_Potential_Energy(T+1) ...and

Entropy(T) <= Entropy(T+1)


Entropy within a system strictly increases. Ability to perform work eventually ceases. A perpetual motion machine is not possible.


________________________________________


The temperature of a body cannot increase without additional energy, ergo increasing the temperature of a body is work, and is calculated as the amount of energy transferred to increase the temperature. The 0th Law of Thermodynamics states that bodies of the same temperature have no potential for work (relative to each other) as neither can increase the temperature of the other. Energy only flows from bodies of higher temperature to bodies of lower temperature because those cases represent potential to perform the work needed to increase the temperature of the body of lower temperature. When that happens, the temperature of the body of higher temperature decreases as it loses the quantity of thermal energy required to perform the work of increasing the temperature of the body of lower temperature.

Per the 1st Law of Thermodynamics:

Energy(Warmer_Body,T) + Energy(Cooler_Body,T) = Energy(Warmer_Body,T+1) + Energy(Cooler_Body,T+1)

Energy(Warmer_Body,T) - Work = Energy(Warmer_Body,T+1)
Energy(Cooler_Body,T) + Work = Energy(Cooler_Body,T+1)


However, per the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics:

Temperature(Warmer_Body,T) > Temperature(Warmer_Body,T+1)
Temperature(Cooler_Body,T) < Temperature(Cooler_Body,T+1)


In some cases temperature is increased because of pressure applied to a body. In such cases the energy used to apply the pressure becomes the work which increases the temperature.

In some cases temperature is increased because of the force of friction (contact force plus acceleration). In such cases the energy used to apply the contact force and the energy creating the acceleration become the work which increases the temperature.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-06-2019 01:01
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
Sorry that i'm simplistic here but there are no closed systems other than the universe. Even considering the universe as a whole there are scientists who believe they have found evidence that out universe has experienced a collision with another universe.
08-06-2019 03:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
It's your buzzword (stone).

Fallacy fallacy. The Argument of the Stone fallacy is called that because it's like talking to a stone. I did not create the fallacy or name it.
keepit wrote:
There has to be some inflation in the system to make it go.

No, there doesn't. Capitalism works just fine without any government or any central bank. The creation of wealth in capitalism means prices go down, not up. The normal state of capitalism is a deflationary pattern. It's a healthy one too. More people can partake in the economy with the lower prices, new products produced more efficiently, and afford products that weren't there before at all.
keepit wrote:
You're more hysterical about the economy than i am about global warming.

No. The U.S. government will simply be facing some very hard choices in a decade or so. They are being forced to deal with some of them even now.

Trump has done a lot to mitigate the problem, but he can't save it.

keepit wrote:
When you string together a bunch of vague opinions to form a conclusion it becomes hard to understand. I'm being polite here in my words.

Here's the gist of it:

* The U.S. government can only raise money three ways: print it, borrow it, or tax it.
* They are printing too much, causing inflation.
* They were taxing too much, cause stagnation. That has been corrected temporarily by Trump.
* They are borrowing too much, without any ability to pay it back. Inevitably they will default. They cannot stop it unless they severely reduce the size of government. That's not going to happen voluntarily, but it WILL happen involuntarily.
* Social security is projected to be bankrupt in 2034. At that time, only 77% of the people paying into the system will provide revenue for that system. The rest must be printed, taxed, or borrowed.
* Massive printing causes hyperinflation.
* Massive taxing causes revolts and shuts down the economy.
* Massive borrowing causes default. There aren't enough fools to invest in bonds like that.

The end result will be the collapse of the dollar. Another currency will be found by the people themselves. Already people are beginning to lose faith in the dollar and are exploring various alternatives. I do not yet know which direction this will take.

The best preparation is to get your investments into commodity wealth (not commodity futures). Buy real estate. Buy gold. Buy silver. Buy art pieces. Buy diamonds. Get a stock of food and other resources to last a few months and store them properly. If you can't store that much, store what you can. These are sensible steps. There is no need to panic, but being prepared will help not only you, but your neighbors who are not as well prepared.

Neighbors will depend upon each other more than they do now.

Cash is the worst place to be. IRA's will collapse along with the dollar. Paper wealth is not wealth.

This will hit the cities far worse than the country. The country is self sufficient. Cities aren't.

It happened to Brazil. It happened to Mexico. It happened to the USSR. It can happen to us. When it happens to us, EVERYONE will be affected. The interlinking of banks and currencies around the world is more extensive than anywhere.

Central banks around the world are preparing for this by buying massive amounts of gold. Will there be a return to the gold standard? The United States currently has 2018 tons of gold available for its use. This is less than France, a much smaller country. China has been buying massive amounts of gold. Iran is already on a gold standard. They also have oil.

We shall see.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-06-2019 03:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
You are ignoring that the second law has local and temporal variations.


No, it doesn't. YOU are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Heat cannot flow from cold to hot. Entropy cannot decrease in any closed system. It must increase or stay the same in any closed system. There is no such thing as 'local' entropy. That is comparing two different closed systems as if they were the same...a false equivalence fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-06-2019 03:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
I admit that you might be right eventually but you might be wrong. But you sound so sure of your opinions and that is wrong. I might be wrong about global warming. We'll see.
We already know.
keepit wrote:
There are variations in the rate of inflation through time.
So far so good.
It does depend on the rest of the world trusting the dollar, so far so good.

The rest of the world is already in the process of dumping the dollar.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-06-2019 03:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
I think the outcome depends upon mistakes made by world leaders as much as it depends on pure economics.

The United States is the largest economy on Earth. There are other major economies, such as the European Union, but nothing like the United States. What happens to it affects everyone.

Worse, every nation on Earth with the exception of Iran is using fiat money. It has no inherent value except what some central bank gives it. Currency trading masks what is happening because all the worlds currencies are going down together. This situation has never happened before in the history of the world. It's a worldwide race to the bottom.
keepit wrote:
Besides, where is the inflation that you speak of.

In 1960, a gallon of gas cost $0.31. Today, that same gallon costs $3 at current prices (current national averages).
In 1960, a nice split level house cost $120,000. Today, that same house and lot runs $700,000.
In 1960, a 50g chocolate bar cost ten cents. Today, you can expect to pay $1.80 for one.
In 1960, one oz of gold cost $50. Today, that same oz costs $1340.
In 1960, a new average sized car cost $2700. Today, an average sized car costs $35000.

There are many other examples. These are items that are commonly used.

There are exceptions, of course, an IBM 360 computer cost $250,000 plus the cost of the room you had to put it in, the HVAC required, etc., while a personal computer can be had today for $2000 or even less, and it has far more computing power than that IBM 360. This deflation was a direct result of capitalism causing technology improvements. Now truly awesome computing power is available to nearly everyone!

keepit wrote:
I hope you don't give your disbelief of evidence as evidence of your viewpoint.

No. I give you historic commodity charts as evidence of my viewpoint. Anyone can look them up and see for themselves. Kitco.com tracks precious metal prices, for example. There are similar sites that track grain, lumber, energy products (oil, coal, natural gas, etc), currency charts relating one currency to another, charts of the amount of gold stored in each country for the major holders of gold, etc. Just Google for them.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-06-2019 03:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
Sorry that i'm simplistic here but there are no closed systems other than the universe.

The universe is an open system. It can be treated as a closed system for the purposes of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

A closed system is simply a system where you define the boundaries. Any system will do. Any energy from outside that system cannot be considered. Any energy sinks outside that system cannot be considered. A closed system is literally what you make it.

Example:
A refrigerator in an average home keeps things cold. Seemingly, this is a decrease in entropy, but it is not.

That refrigerator has to be plugged in to do its thing. That means the system must contain the power plant providing power for that refrigerator. Total entropy in the system is increasing as the power plant consumes fuel or makes use of falling water to generate power.

If you consider just the refrigerator by itself, then you can't plug it in. You can't consider outside power for it. Such a refrigerator will no longer keep things cold. It will reach room temperature. Entropy increases in that system as well.

There is no such thing as 'local' entropy. It is simply a different closed system.

keepit wrote:
Even considering the universe as a whole

The universe is an open system. There are no specified physical boundaries. Yet the 2nd law still works. The entropy in the entire universe remains the same. It does not decrease.
keepit wrote:
there are scientists who believe they have found evidence that out universe has experienced a collision with another universe.

By 'universe' you mean everything, everywhere, even including 'other' universes. To consider an outside universe to a universe is a denial of the universe to begin with. The term 'universe' becomes meaningless if it doesn't consider all 'universes' within that universe.

Such scientists are simply ignoring what a universe is. If there are two universes, neither is a universe, for neither contains everything.

You can put your science fiction book away now.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-06-2019 04:22
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
I appreciate you trying explain your point of view.

There are an awful lot of misconceptions in there though.
You don't know nearly as much economics as you do science and engineering.
Page 4 of 5<<<2345>





Join the debate carbon footprint:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Carbon-tax comes to the Northeast, some states reluctant...328-01-2020 04:00
Burning Trees (carbon neutral) and the IPCC314-01-2020 21:44
Challenges with making carbon emitting sustainable?927-12-2019 06:58
Let us hang the bar high: We need to achieve a carbon neutral way of life2318-12-2019 23:21
Technology will solve problem with carbon capture826-11-2019 20:48
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact