Talk-Polywell.org

JohnP wrote:Might be crazy, but IF the price of oil is now largely speculation, not fundamentals, and IF the speculators trade on rumors (mostly bad, driving price up), then... what will happen if there's an announcement of a successful Polywell test? Would it be shrugged off as too esoteric to affect the market? Or would it pop the bubble?

Nuclear power plants (of one sort or another) are the necessary component of all electrical transportation.

Mature hybrid vehicles (serial hybrids) are essentially electrical cars with a small ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) instead of an uber-efficiency battery pack. Supercapacitors and some related technologies are nearly ready for long duration high capacity electrical storage. Once ready those can be slipped in in place of the ICE in the hybrids, creating effective all-electrical cars.

At that point its a matter of fleet switchover to all electrical drive and establishing an expanded electrical delivery grid. Say 10 years. Deliveries to remote locales off the grid may still require hydrocarbon fuels or an inventive solution. Maybe carbon nanotube ballistic conduction power lines built into every road by regulatory mandate.

MSimon wrote:South Vietnam by 1973 had its own autonomous government with about 30,000 American troops helping to hold the fort. (I could be wrong about troop numbers in '73. It is near the correct number for '75)

The fort fell in 1975 to NVA divisions crossing the border and the US Congress denying promised support. The American military won that war. Congress surrendered.

History my man. History. You can have your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.

You didn't win the war, at best you had a unpopular stalemate. And that's the thing. Congresses job is to represent the people. And the majority of Americans certainly didn't support staying in the war. It was probably known to the North that Congress wouldn't; the war was just too deeply unpopular for elected representatives to vote for prolonging it. Congress was simply reflecting the will of the people. Isn't America a democracy after all?

Aside from that, you seem to be missing the point. You lost Vietnam, never mind how. Aside from losing the conflict, America also lost most of its innocence and a good deal of faith in its elected representatives. Unpleasant facts perhaps, but facts nevertheless. Moreover, Vietnam hardly turned out to be a cauldron of Communists taking over the world. It's very hard to deny that you'd be better off if you'd just told the French to F off back in 1950 when they came asking for help.

I believe that democracy must be defended with force, but it can't be spread by force. Education, wealth and the rule of law are the keys to spreading democracy, and you might have accomplished all that in Vietnam if you'd been a little less gung ho.

You didn't win the war, at best you had a unpopular stalemate.

Are you talking about South Korea?

Let us be clear. The US military won the war. The US Congress surrendered that victory.

Congress' job is not just to represent the people. It is also to represent the nation. It is why we have a Republic and not a representative Democracy.

To tell true I favored the decision Congress made. A lot of people died for my sins. I am eternally stained by that decision. I am also no longer in the surrender at any price camp. i.e. I'm not a Democrat any more.

As to whether self government can be spread by force? I think it can be. First you defeat the enemies of self government. You provide security so economic growth can happen. You protect it until it is self sustaining. It worked in South Korea. The principles are simple. Execution is hard.

Yeah we lost our innocence all right. Assuming the leaders in government and in the press have the interests of the nation and the people of the world at heart was a big mistake.

Korea was an unpopular war and Truman did the right thing. Vietnam was an unpopular war and Congress did the wrong thing.

I suppose the lesson is: sometimes we get better government than we deserve, but don't count on it.

Simon

MSimon wrote:[As to whether self government can be spread by force? I think it can be. First you defeat the enemies of self government. You provide security so economic growth can happen. You protect it until it is self sustaining. It worked in South Korea. The principles are simple. Execution is hard.

I live in the ROK and am married to a Korean. Korea had the advantage of having quite a few strong leaders. Vietnam didn't, except for the one that was killed with Americas implicit support. Korea is also an inherently defensible country with no third borders. Several factors made execution easier. If China had stayed out the result would be better yet.

Actually, Ho Chi Minh Was Vietnam's Strongest leader. Truman missed a golden oppourtunity to support him in 1945 in exchange for bases and influence.

OneWayTraffic wrote:Actually, Ho Chi Minh Was Vietnam's Strongest leader. Truman missed a golden oppourtunity to support him in 1945 in exchange for bases and influence.

Yes. But was he just an authoritarian? Or was he a despot? Was he a capitalist at heart? Or a communist?

The wiki sheds some light:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh

In 1921, during the Congress of Tours, France, Nguyen Ai Quoc became a founding member of the Parti Communiste Français (French Communist Party) and spent much of his time in Moscow afterwards, becoming the Comintern's Asia hand and the principal theorist on colonial warfare.

So then comes the question: was the offer genuine or part of a double cross plan?

We'll never know for certain. But it could hardly be any worse than what transpired.

OneWayTraffic wrote:We'll never know for certain. But it could hardly be any worse than what transpired.

Sure it could have been worse. I can think of any number of ways.

JohnP wrote: Or would it pop the bubble?

I'm not exactly convinced on the bubble. More oil is sold in euros these days, the euro is going up, the dollar down, world oil production has hit a plateau for the last 3 years. Plus politics.

There is more at play than speculation. Lots more.

I'm not exactly convinced on the bubble. More oil is sold in euros these days, the euro is going up, the dollar down, world oil production has hit a plateau for the last 3 years. Plus politics.

You got me. I'm not a commodities trader or anything remotely like it.

But oil's gone from $40-$50 to $120 in a very short time. Don't tell me that the Euro has appreciated 300% vs the USD. And the whole supply and demand thing looks obfuscated beyond all reckoning. Do we have reserves? Are we driving more? Less? Who gives a shit, as long as you can bank on a steady stream of rumors.

OneWayTraffic wrote:Actually, Ho Chi Minh Was Vietnam's Strongest leader. Truman missed a golden oppourtunity to support him in 1945 in exchange for bases and influence.

Or Kai-Shek. That could have kept a billion Chinese free.

You have to wonder how much better a place the Earth would be if China looked like S Korea today, instead of being 25 years behind.

Are you talking about South Korea?

A lot of people don't realize that the shining jewel of liberty and prosperity that is modern S Korea was just a collection of mud huts and fishing villages in the 1950s, ruled by a fairly unpleasant autocracy. Most industry was in the North.

JohnP wrote:

I'm not exactly convinced on the bubble. More oil is sold in euros these days, the euro is going up, the dollar down, world oil production has hit a plateau for the last 3 years. Plus politics.

You got me. I'm not a commodities trader or anything remotely like it.

But oil's gone from $40-$50 to $120 in a very short time. Don't tell me that the Euro has appreciated 300% vs the USD. And the whole supply and demand thing looks obfuscated beyond all reckoning. Do we have reserves? Are we driving more? Less? Who gives a shit, as long as you can bank on a steady stream of rumors.

The biggest factor has to be inelasticity of supply and inelasticity of demand. If the price of gasoline doubles tomorrow, I'm still going to drive my usual 48 miles to work (while thinking about a job search), and the refinery that distilled my gasoline is still going to buy the same type of oil (Texas intermediate maybe) while also considering their options for buying a coker to be able to distill some cheaper heavy sour....

Demand is at supply, huge price fluxuations have very weak effect on either except in the extreme long term; Supply and demand are both inelastic relative to price.

Helius wrote: The biggest factor has to be inelasticity of supply and inelasticity of demand. If the price of gasoline doubles tomorrow, I'm still going to drive my usual 48 miles to work (while thinking about a job search), and the refinery that distilled my gasoline is still going to buy the same type of oil (Texas intermediate maybe) while also considering their options for buying a coker to be able to distill some cheaper heavy sour....

Demand is at supply, huge price fluxuations have very weak effect on either except in the extreme long term; Supply and demand are both inelastic relative to price.

But what are the chances that you'll find a couple of people to car pool with or get a smaller car? Rather better than switching jobs right?

As a non American I can't imagne commuting or 48miles. That's way too far to go twice a day.