quote: "As ridiculous as it seems & hard to believe, we could all be running our cars from pure H2O."
"Come on in the Water's Warm in 2015!
Welcome to 12 years of honest research and 8 years of HHO business. Learning to run a car on 100% WATER is a reality, but heavily suppressed, to the degree of murdering the inventor who will NOT sell out to the NWO Bankster Military Industrial Complex."
Is there where you're getting your information from? Are you really taking this seriously?
quote:I don't endorse namecalling...I also don't endorse People who think that they have some info from the establishment that trumps People Speaking Reality.
emails from some mainstream person does not trump Truth.
Yet you say nothing about Amun-Ra's nonsense but mention my reaction.
And another thing, the e-mails document what mainstream academics really think. Where did I ever say it trumps the truth? Go back and find me an example where I said that their views "trump the truth" and we can discuss....
quote: Amun Ra said Alternitives to Fossil fuels, not just solar energy.
I'm not following. I raised a series of points around the practicalities of large-scale adoption of alternative energies in the form of wind and solar power... which you duck and instead talk about water-powered cars.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: Your link starts with:
quote: "As ridiculous as it seems & hard to believe, we could all be running our cars from pure H2O."
"Come on in the Water's Warm in 2015!
Welcome to 12 years of honest research and 8 years of HHO business. Learning to run a car on 100% WATER is a reality, but heavily suppressed, to the degree of murdering the inventor who will NOT sell out to the NWO Bankster Military Industrial Complex."
Is there where you're getting your information from? Are you really taking this seriously?
quote:I don't endorse namecalling...I also don't endorse People who think that they have some info from the establishment that trumps People Speaking Reality.
emails from some mainstream person does not trump Truth.
Yet you say nothing about Amun-Ra's nonsense but mention my reaction.
And another thing, the e-mails document what mainstream academics really think. Where did I ever say it trumps the truth? Go back and find me an example where I said that their views "trump the truth" and we can discuss....
quote: Amun Ra said Alternitives to Fossil fuels, not just solar energy.
I'm not following. I raised a series of points around the practicalities of large-scale adoption of alternative energies in the form of wind and solar power... which you duck and instead talk about water-powered cars.
posted
Has anyone here considered nuclear energy? It doesn't produce greenhouse gases, but it's not one of those "flimsy" renewables either. I think it could work fine, at least if supplemented by renewables.
When I saw this I thought it was BS...I scrolled through the comments and:
quote: Jay Davis, Wellington, NZ-- It doesn't quite run on salt water. If you read the article carefully you will see that it uses a closed loop battery system, suggesting it needs longer to charge, doesn't last as long as a Tesla but costs 17 x the price. Great marketing team though. Had me interested for half a second.
Also:
quote: John L Sayers-- This is a deceptive post - the car still runs on the fossil fuels needed to charge the salt water battery. It is just an alternative battery system. L
posted
From Richard Heinberg's 2003 The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies, Chapter 4, Non-Petroleum Energy Sources: Can the Party Continue?
"How much energy could be derived from wind?Theoretically, a great deal. A good guide is a 1993 study by NREL that concluded that about 15 quads (quadrillion BTU) of energy could be produced in the US per year. Since the newer turbines are capable of operating in a wider range of wind conditions, that potential could conceivably now be in the range of 60 quads. Total energy usage in the US is about 100 quads. However, the realization of that potential will require huge investments and a strong commitment on the part of policymakers. Investment will be required not just for the turbines themselves, but also for new transmission lines: a 1991 California study estimated that only 12 percent of the "gross technical potential" for wind power in that state could be realized given the existing transmission infrastructure. In addition, it will be necessary to solve technical problems arising from wind power's intermittent daily, monthly, and seasonal availability. Often, peak availability of wind does not correspond with peak energy demand. This is not an insurmountable problem: energy storage systems (such as the Regenesys regenerative electrochemical fuel cell) are in development that may in the future eliminate the daily variability of electricity generation from wind."
"Wind can deliver net energy: the challenge for industrial societies is to scale up production quickly enough to avert economic and social calamity ensuing from the inevitable disruptions in oil and natural gas supplies. Just to produce 18 quads of wind power in the US by 2030 (never mind the 60 quads of theoretical potential) would require the installation of something like half a million state-of-the art turbines, or roughly 20,000 per year starting now. That is five times the present world production capacity for turbines. This feat could be accomplished, but it would require a significant reallocation of economic resources. Meanwhile, most of the energy needed for that undertaking would have to come from dwindling fossil fuels. Given the energy investment required for turbine constructions and other infrastructure developments necessary for the transition to renewables, as petroleum begins to peter out there would be no surplus energy available to maintain the economy in conventional ways" (p140-142).
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Solar Power "Net-energy calculations for photovoltaics are a matter of some controversy. Clearly, conventional silicon-crystal cells have so far had a relatively low return for the energy invested in their manufacture, even though promoters of the technology staunchly claim a favourable figure (typically, they exclude from their analyses the energy expended in transportation as well as that embodied in production facilities). In this instance at least, net-energy payback appears to be highly sensitive to the volume of production: PV modules are still manufactured on a very small scale; if demand were to rise very noticeably. It is likely that, even if the most pessimistic assessments of silicon-crystal cells - which suggest a current net return of less than 1:1 - are correct, the newer thin-film and DSC technologies may be able to achieve a substantially more favourable EROEI [Energy Returned On Energy Invested] (the more optimistic assessments of silicon-crystal cells suggest a current net return of roughly 10). At some point the net energy available from PV electricity will overtake the EROEI that can be derived from petroleum, as the latter is depleted. Thus the commercial development and implementation of new PV technologies will have to move at breakneck speed to stay ahead of the net energy decline from post-production-peak petroleum. Solar photovoltaic and thermal-electrical technologies present us once again with the problem we noted concerning nuclear power and wind: electricity cannot easily be made to power our current transportation and agriculture infrastructure. What is needed is some efficient medium for storing electrical energy that also renders that energy transportable and capable of efficiently moving large vehicles" (pp145-146).
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
Stan Meyer's Dune Buggy that ran on water. Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel in an ICE motor. On board electrolysis, no hydrogen tanks, no bombs on-board, just water. (1998)
1995 --given that the 'technology' used in that buggy is 20 years old, and would,if genuine, have generated a revolution in mass travel, the fact that it remains fringe suggests that the technology is only taken seriously by the gullible.
quote: The Technology is NEW!!!
If Cars could run on Water right away instead of the Technology being there,
ALL PEOPLE WOULD KNOW THAT!!!! AND BUY THE WATER FUELED CAR!!!
^What does this garbled nonsense even mean?
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
Stan Meyer's Dune Buggy that ran on water. Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel in an ICE motor. On board electrolysis, no hydrogen tanks, no bombs on-board, just water. (1998)
1995 --the 'technology' used in that buggy is 20 years old, and would,if genuine, have generated a revolution in mass travel, the fact that it remains fringe suggests that the technology is only taken seriously by the gullible.
quote: The Technology is NEW!!!
If Cars could run on Water right away instead of the Technology being there,
ALL PEOPLE WOULD KNOW THAT!!!! AND BUY THE WATER FUELED CAR!!!
^What does this garbled nonsense even mean?
No, Person the oil companies would lose massive amount of money!!! and People would spend there money on things that Matter, since Water Comes from the Sky!!!
THINK.
The Technology is there, You were shown that, What are you arguing now?
Did you watch the Videos???
Keep barking Doggy.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
" Abundant? The fuel supply for nuclear power is virtually limitless if we use fast-breeder reactors to produce plutonium - which is one of the most poisonous materials known and is used to make nuclear weapons. But only a few fast-breeders have been constructed, and they have proved to be prohibitively expensive, largely as a result of the need for special safety systems...France and the UK, despite having pursued breeder programs for several decades, have no plans for constructing more such plants. Japan has not restarted its Monju reactor, which was shut down after a sodium fire in December 1995. Among countries that have constructed breeders, Russia alone supports further development."
"Uranium - the usual fuel for conventional reactors - must be mined, and it exists in finite quantities. The US currently possesses enough uranium to fuel existing reactors for the next 40 years."
"Further, much of the energy needed to mine uranium currently comes from oil. As petroleum becomes more scarce and expensive, the mining process will likewise become more costly and will yield less net energy" (pp134-135).
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
How ridiculous. Do you really seriously think that if water was found to be an alternative to petrol that the technology would remain undeveloped? After 20 years? That the Japanese, who lack indigenous oil reserves, would have desisted from developing the technology?
quote: No Person the oil companies would lose massive amount of money!!! and People would spend there money on things that Matter, since Water Comes from the Sky!!!
And no, I didn't watch the videos...in the same way that I wouldn't watch them if they said that we're controlled by alien lizards.
Get a grip.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: How ridiculous. Do you really seriously think that if water was found to be an alternative to petrol that the technology would remain undeveloped? After 20 years? That the Japanese, who lack indigenous oil reserves, would have desisted from developing the technology?
quote: No Person the oil companies would lose massive amount of money!!! and People would spend there money on things that Matter, since Water Comes from the Sky!!!
And no, I didn't watch the videos...in the same way that I wouldn't watch them if they said that we're controlled by alien lizards.
Get a grip.
sigh
Person keep Barking
Heres another Link for You to read Japanese Car this time:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^You're a total idiot.
As I said: Park Chung Hee there was talking about the problems lent to him by the previous South Korean governments. The situation of South Korea before Park Chung Hee took power was as worse as many current African countries. His goal was always to reverse the situation.
This is a quote from your book:
quote:Park tackled this issue on two fronts: he urged the Korean people to “wake up” from old habits of dependence and to work for economic development, and he demanded that the US Government change its aid policy to allow Korea to “obtain more of the kind of aid we want and to utilize it independently” (Park Chung Hee 1963a: 45). He declared, “We reject any begging-style aid” (Nam Chaehui 1963: 57). In campaigning for Korea’s autonomy, free from US intervention linked to foreign aid, Park set about systematically eliminating US influence on Korean Government affairs. -quote same book
^^If African countries do something similar to that. Half the victory would have been won. The main ideology of Park Chung Hee was one of "Self-Reliance". Google it, read his books, etc.
Dumbass, must I school you yet again? You minimized the role of aid in South Korea, and I demonstrated using your own sources, that you are plain wrong. Rather than simply qualify or correct your claim, you go into lame diversion or restatement of what you have been already debunked on, posturing as as if you originally made the point. No one is being fooled by such.
As I said: Park Chung Hee there was talking about the problems lent to him by the previous South Korean governments. The situation of South Korea before Park Chung Hee took power was as worse as many current African countries. His goal was always to reverse the situation.
Now you are trying to backtrack by changing the subject. The issue was your claim that aid was unimportant to South Korea. You said see Park Chung Hee for confirmation, little realizing that Park himself as shown above, acknowledged that aid WAS important. You are trying to move the goalposts now with a diversion. The issue was not problems left by previous givernment. No one is fooled with your shaky diversion. The issue was aid. Park's goal was to reverse how the Americans were using aid to interfere in S. Korea's affairs. Your own "supporting reference" says this.
You earlier said: To develop Thailand, Africa or any country the best thing to do is what the Chinese, American, Scandinavian, South Korean did... None of those regions grew up because of aid.,
But this is false. SOuth Korea had plenty of US aid, Let's see your boy Park Chung Hee: QUOTE:
"In campaigning for Korea’s autonomy, free from US intervention linked to foreign aid, Park set about systematically eliminating US influence on Korean Government affairs."
and
“obtain more of the kind of aid we want and to utilize it independently” and “We reject any begging-style aid”
Your own quote shows that (a) the US aid was in place, (b) the aid was very important to South Korea, and (c) Park wanted to change THE KINDS OF AID received, and wanted to be able to use the aid INDEPENDENTLY without US strings. The aid was in place. None of this helps your earlier insinuation that aid was so minimal or marginal to South Korea.
This is a from your book:
quote:Park tackled this issue on two fronts: he urged the Korean people to “wake up” from old habits of dependence and to work for economic development, and he demanded that the US Government change its aid policy to allow Korea to “obtain more of the kind of aid we want and to utilize it independently” (Park Chung Hee 1963a: 45). He declared, “We reject any begging-style aid” (Nam Chaehui 1963: 57). In campaigning for Korea’s autonomy, free from US intervention linked to foreign aid, Park set about systematically eliminating US influence on Korean Government affairs. -quote same book
^^If African countries do something similar to that. Half the victory would have been won. The main ideology of Park Chung Hee was one of "Self-Reliance". Google it, read his books, etc.
Dude, you are only making my point for me, and your quote shows it. Park's call for self-reliance does not change the central point about aid. Think man! Why would Park be even calling for "self-reliance" unless aid was not such a big factor in play, being used by the US to interfere? US Aid at one time was over 50% of South Korea's budget. - Quote:
"This repesents 52% of the total budget.. thus more than half the national budget depended on the United States.. It showed, dramatically, that our government would have to instantly close down if US aid were withheld or withdrawn."
--(Park Chung Hee, - quoted in Korea's Development Under Park Chung Hee By Hyung-A Kim. 2004.)
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Truthcen says: I am no economist, but I've longed intuited that you can't have the sheer level of material affluence we enjoy without hogging a larger proportion of resources for ourselves, away from the people who become the have-nots of the world. Our planet has only so many resources to share after all. It may make us uncomfortable, but we in the industrialized nations may have to cut back on our obscene rate of consumption in order for the so-called developing nations to prosper.
True in part but Keep in mind that:
a) the consumption of "the West" is a great driver of growth for the Tworld. Western hunger for 0il, rubber, copper, and even things like coffee, sugar and cotton generates income for the TW and increases its prosperity
b) The industrialized nations consume more it is true, but they also produce more, and produce more efficiently, and in greater quantities. So for example most chrome is gobbled up by the industrialized nations, but who is making the most efficient and best use as far as goods produced using chrome?
c) The West is in the forefront of discovering NEW resources either by direct extraction or conversion of once "useless" substances to new resurces - oil is a classic example- or adaptation of an existing resource to new uses. Hence synthetics have in some cases caused a reduction in the use of natural resources- rubber being an example, or synthetics from oil or coal reducing the oil needed from whales, thus reducing the need to hunt and kill whales for oil in the West. Synthetics can also replace natural fibers in some cases, reducing the need for Third WOrld goods on this front.
d) It used to be that the West" was the main one vacuuming up resources but now one of the main gobblers is China, and China has a lot less concwrn for detailed labor standards, enviromental protections, etc.
None of the above of course means that their isn't a dark side to the resource consumption, including depletion of resources, or environmental degredation. The industrialized nations indeed need to start doing things more efficiently, and yes cutting back in various ways. Oil consumption can be reduced for example with certain measures. As always there will be tradeoffs. Less TW resources may be needed as the West substitutes synthetics and economies for natural products, leading to a possible slowing of TW growth and prosperity unless they too find some adjustment.
Tropicals says People on ES have disagreed with me on this before, but I maintain that there aren't sufficient fossil fuels in the world for everyone to have the living standard associated with industrialised societies.
Its a complex question. There are still massive deposits of fossil fuels to be exploited. We have barely began to tap shale oil and tar sands for example. Second are efficiencies in extraction and conversion- such as improvements via coal. Third are new technologies that will reduce fossil fuel consumption. Nuclear power was ne of those- now out of favor- but new technologies will mean less fossil fuels needed.
As for living standards, it depends at what level you mean. The modern era is showing that countries can be prosperous without needing a lot of fossil fuel industry or consumption. The trick is to have a designated set of areas doing the heavy fossil fuel lifting, and then shipping the products to the rest of the region or world. Hence numerous smaller countries are prosperous because all they have to do is produce something of value for the designated production zones, and they raise their living standards by importing goods and services as needed.
This is especially so with "middleman" economies. So Switzerland and Singapore do not need massive coal mines or oil fields, or refineries pumping out dirty product. They can trade their expertise for the products they need to maintain a particular standard of living. Small European countries operating in the shadow of the big dogs like Britain, Germany or France, or even Russia have long done this. Some TW countries are doing this- Singapore, and others- can't name them all right now. But you don't have to be a middleman economy. WHat you need to do is to have some sort of product valuable enough to sell, and then import enough to give you the standard of living.
Now will fossil fuels still be needed to provide all that new electricity generation auto transport etc.? Yes, but that may be manageable because areas outside the the "big dog" zones might likely consume LESS fossil fuels compared to the big dogs. So for example, Bahamas or Barbados can post increasingly better standard of living while not consuming the massive fossil fuel amounts of say Russia. In short, there may be enough fossil fuels to go around (taking into account new production, new tech and new uses/efficiencies) because many areas will use LESS while still obtaining a better standard of living. Every country does not have to produce a concrete monster like New York or London to have a good standard of living. Smaller "middle income" countries have already demonstrated this. Places like Costa Rica aren't gobbling up huge amounts of resources but it is a middling income country relying heavily on unexciting things like tourism and agriculture.
Again, consider that there is still plenty of fossil fuel that can be exploited. The Arctic is barely touched, as are tar sands etc, as is offshore drilling. Is there some point when all will run out? Sure- but not in the foreseeable future provided all the new streams of energy come on line, including efficiencies to REDUCE energy use. None of the above of course means fossil fuels are limitless. No resource is completely limitless over time.
^^Fossil fuel ghosts..
I'm doubtful China will ever be uniformly developed. The term 'developing' is misleading, as it suggests a path which was never really there for most countries
Agreed. I think China is riding an artificial bubble in some respects, with heavy dependence on exports to the US, undervalued currency, and ceaseless government pressure to produce and build at all costs. Sooner or later the bubble will pop. Look at the "ghost cities" being cranked out- the regime decrees build, build, build, so they build. Now granted some of these cities will be populated given enough time so they may not forever be so-called "ghosts". But the concept of "development" needs clear definitions in some of these discussions.
As for most countries, I don;t think they will match China, but then again, they don;t need to. There are several small countries without much industry that post better living standards than China. The old notion - that you need coal mines and steel mills,or massive trading fleets to prosper your citizens is no longer true.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: However, I don't think any combination of alternative fuels will be able to support the industrialised economies that exist today. I wonder whether we've been living in a time that, in terms of human experience, will be regarded as a historical aberration.
I don;t know why people just can't give you a considered answer with some value in there. I actually agree with the above, as far as the short term. No combo now of alternatives will match fossil fuels in the short run. I would guess it will take centuries, simply because we still have a lot of fossil fuel resources and at current prices, it makes sense to continue using them for the large scale industrial and technological civilization of today. Not saying it is the best civilization, just that fossil fuels are the best alternative at present for that scale. In a few centuries this may change.
The book below (haven't read it) argues that there is a decent case to be made for fossil fuels.
The industry’s attackers have successfully portrayed its core product, fossil fuel energy, as a self-destructive addiction that is destroying our planet, and your industry as a fundamentally immoral industry.
Like any immorality or addiction, the argument goes, we may not pay for it at the beginning but we will pay for it in the end. Thus, the only moral option is to use “clean, renewable energy” like solar, wind, and biofuels to live in harmony with the planet instead of exploiting and destroying it. And we need to do it as soon as is humanly possible. This is the moral case against fossil fuels.
But, as I explain in a new book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, if we truly think critically about the morality of fossil fuel energy, both its benefits and its risks, fossil fuel energy is not a dangerous addiction but a healthy choice.
But what does it mean to be moral? I believe an activity is moral if it is fundamentally beneficial to human life. By that standard, is the fossil fuel industry moral?
Yes.
By producing the most abundant, affordable, reliable energy in the world, the fossil fuel industry makes every other industry more productive - and it makes every individual more productive and thus more prosperous, giving him a level of opportunity to pursue happiness that previous generations couldn’t even dream of. Energy, the fuel of technology, is opportunity - the opportunity to use technology to improve every aspect of life.
Including our environment.
Any animal’s environment can be broken down into two categories: threats and resources. (For human beings, “resources” includes a broad spectrum of things, including natural beauty.) To assess the fossil fuel industry’s impact on our environment, we simply need to ask: What is its impact on threats? What is its impact on resources?
The moral case against fossil fuels argues that the industry makes our environment more threatening and our resources scarcer. But if we look at the big-picture facts, the exact opposite is true. The fossil fuel industry makes our environment far safer and generates new resources out of once-useless raw materials.
Let’s start with threats. Schoolchildren for the last several generations have been taught to think of our natural environment as a friendly, stable place - and our main environmental contribution is to mess it up and endanger ourselves in the process. Not so. Nature does not give us a healthy environment to live in - it gives us an environment full of organisms eager to kill us and natural forces that can easily overwhelm us.
It is only thanks to cheap, plentiful, reliable energy that we live in an environment where the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat will not make us sick, and where we can cope with the often hostile climate of Mother Nature. Energy is what we need to build sturdy homes, to purify water, to produce huge amounts of fresh food, to generate heat and air-conditioning, to irrigate deserts, to dry malaria-infested swamps, to build hospitals, and to manufacture pharmaceuticals, among many other things.
And those of us who enjoy exploring the rest of nature should never forget that oil is what enables us to explore to our heart’s content, which pre-industrial people didn’t have the time, wealth, energy, or technology to do. Nowhere is the necessity of energy, and thus fossil fuel energy, more evident than in protecting us from the climate. The climate is inherently dangerous (and it is always changing, whether we influence the change or not). Energy and technology have made us far safer from it.
In the last 80 years, as CO-2 emissions have risen from an atmospheric concentration of .03% to .04%, climate-related deaths have declined 98%. Take drought-related deaths, which have declined by 99.98%. This has nothing to do with a friendly or unfriendly climate, it has to do with the oil and gas industry, which fuels high-energy agriculture as well as natural gas-produced fertilizer, and which fuels drought relief convoys.
Fossil fuels make the planet dramatically safer. And dramatically richer in resources. Environmentalists treat “natural resources” as a fixed pile that nature gives us and which we dare not consume too quickly. In fact, nature gives us very little in the way of useful resources. From clean water to plentiful food to useful medicines, we need to create them using ingenuity.
This is certainly true of energy. Until the Industrial Revolution, there were almost no “energy resources” to speak of. Coal, oil, and natural gas aren’t naturally resources - they are naturally useless. (Or even nuisances.) Those who first discovered how to convert them into energy weren’t depleting a resource, they were creating a resource. The world was a better place for it.
It is obscene to call today’s new resource creators in the shale energy industry and the oil sands energy industry “exploiters” when they have turned stone and sludge into life-giving energy - a feat that may ultimately extend to trillions of barrels of once inaccessible oil (in all of human history we’ve used just over a trillion barrels). The fact that oil is a “finite” material is not a problem, any more than the “finite” supply of rare-earth metals is a black mark against windmills. Every material is finite.
Life is all about taking the theoretically finite but practically limitless materials in nature and creatively turning them into useful resources. The fossil fuel industry does it, the “renewable” - actually, the “unreliable”- energy industry doesn’t. End of story. “Renewables” are no more the ideal form of energy than wood is the ideal material for skyscrapers.
And by creating the best form of energy resource, the fossil fuel industry helps every other industry more efficiently create every other type of resource, from food to steel.
Your industry is fundamentally good. It minimizes environmental threats and maximizes environmental resources. This truth, along with the rest of the moral case for fossil fuels, is something the industry needs to understand and communicate--for all our sakes.
Alex Epstein is the author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (Portfolio, Penguin) and founder of the Center for Industrial Progress.
The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein (Author)
Could everything we know about fossil fuels be wrong?
For decades, environmentalists have told us that using fossil fuels is a self-destructive addiction that will destroy our planet. Yet at the same time, by every measure of human well-being, from life expectancy to clean water to climate safety, life has been getting better and better.
How can this be?
The explanation, energy expert Alex Epstein argues in The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, is that we usually hear only one side of the story. We’re taught to think only of the negatives of fossil fuels, their risks and side effects, but not their positives—their unique ability to provide cheap, reliable energy for a world of seven billion people. And the moral significance of cheap, reliable energy, Epstein argues, is woefully underrated. Energy is our ability to improve every single aspect of life, whether economic or environmental.
If we look at the big picture of fossil fuels compared with the alternatives, the overall impact of using fossil fuels is to make the world a far better place. We are morally obligated to use more fossil fuels for the sake of our economy and our environment.
Drawing on original insights and cutting-edge research, Epstein argues that most of what we hear about fossil fuels is a myth. For instance . . .
Myth: Fossil fuels are dirty. Truth: The environmental benefits of using fossil fuels far outweigh the risks. Fossil fuels don’t take a naturally clean environment and make it dirty; they take a naturally dirty environment and make it clean. They don’t take a naturally safe climate and make it dangerous; they take a naturally dangerous climate and make it ever safer.
Myth: Fossil fuels are unsustainable, so we should strive to use “renewable” solar and wind. Truth: The sun and wind are intermittent, unreliable fuels that always need backup from a reliable source of energy—usually fossil fuels. There are huge amounts of fossil fuels left, and we have plenty of time to find something cheaper.
Myth: Fossil fuels are hurting the developing world. Truth: Fossil fuels are the key to improving the quality of life for billions of people in the developing world. If we withhold them, access to clean water plummets, critical medical machines like incubators become impossible to operate, and life expectancy drops significantly. Calls to “get off fossil fuels” are calls to degrade the lives of innocent people who merely want the same opportunities we enjoy in the West.
Taking everything into account, including the facts about climate change, Epstein argues that “fossil fuels are easy to misunderstand and demonize, but they are absolutely good to use. And they absolutely need to be championed. . . . Mankind’s use of fossil fuels is supremely virtuous—because human life is the standard of value and because using fossil fuels transforms our environment to make it wonderful for human life.”
-amazon.com
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
A concern about the continued use of fossil fuels relates to climate change, particularly for largely rural societies living with already challenging, tropical climates.
On shale oil, I don't know if it's going to have the long-term viability that conventional sources had. Richard Heinberg (2003) suggested that once global peak production of conventional sources had been reached (which appears to have happened in the mid-2000s) the next play would be for the more difficult to access shale deposits. However, he cautioned, and still does, that the solution offered by shale would be illusory and short-lived, because the decline rates for the individual wells are so rapid:
Can't remember where, but I saw a report over the last couple of weeks which suggested peak shale production as being 2016.
There's also the current of the Saudi attempt to kill off shale producers as rivals. The Saudis are feeding an oil glut, which depresses oil prices, which in turn makes shale less viable financially (and vice versa).
That's not to say that we should expect imminent societal meltdown - we could be on a plateau of overall fossil production that could last another decade or more before we start experiencing supply shocks. I think the overriding message is that we need to get serious about less energy intensive arrangements, what I think writers call 'powering down.' Yes, there is a place for fossil fuel alternatives, but again, I'm doubtful they're going to allow for business as usual.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is so much controversy surrounding the theory of water powered cars that a Filipino inventor who was 82 years old was imprisoned for 20 years on charges of fraud when his claim that he could make a car run on water did not occur.
So where are the Japanese mass-producing these cars?
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by redacted: @Child of the King
Even behind your own link--:
quote: There is so much controversy surrounding the theory of water powered cars that a Filipino inventor who was 82 years old was imprisoned for 20 years on charges of fraud when his claim that he could make a car run on water did not occur.
So where are the Japanese mass-producing these cars?
Only they Know why they are not mass producing the Car, Maybe Because Water Comes from the Sky!!! and that the corporates would make absolutly NO MONEY!!!! off the Car except a One time Purchase. Also the Oil companies would be practically shutdown since fuel is their main thing.
Matter of Fact One guy who created a Water Car died mysteriously. R.I.P
Persons, you must understand That the Technology is there and thats just one method of alternitive energy that can be used instead of Earth destroying fossil fuels.
Also you should check one of the Links Because one of the Inventors was on a Newscast Mainstream news.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no such think as a water powered cars. It is is impossible. Anyone who believes it exist don't understand the Laws of Thermodynamic. Even "fuel cells " is a waste of time.
Nuclear, fusion (if possible ), solar , hydro, wind are "true" alternatives. But solar and wind don't give bang for buck. They are only "friendly" to the environment.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not to say that we should expect imminent societal meltdown - we could be on a plateau of overall fossil production that could last another decade or more before we start experiencing supply shocks. I think the overriding message is that we need to get serious about less energy intensive arrangements, what I think writers call 'powering down.' Yes, there is a place for fossil fuel alternatives, but again, I'm doubtful they're going to allow for business as usual.
Could very well be. Supply shocks could come from a variety of causes- war in the Middle East, a Russian boycott of Europe, etc etc. I think we have a decent window of opportunity to manage the supply problem, which would include both increasing production from various areas (the Artic, Antarctica, offshore, Canadian tundra etc), relatively lightly tapped oil sands and such, as well as pursuing efficiencies to use less hydrocarbons.
Indeed as one analysis notes, just Saudi oil reserves will last comfortably through this century. And that's the Saudis. There are new areas still to come online, or revamped production of old areas using new technology. Classic fuels like coal, which now for example is China's primary powering fuel, can also be added to the mix, using newer, cleaner tech.
As regards Africa, the hungry predators vacuuming up resources need to be made to work more in Africa's interests.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Dumbass, must I school you yet again? You minimized the role of aid in South Korea, and I demonstrated using your own sources, that you are plain wrong. Rather than simply qualify or correct your claim, you go into lame diversion or restatement of what you have been already debunked on, posturing as as if you originally made the point. No one is being fooled by such.
What irks me in all of this is you don't know shitt about the development in South Korea (and many other countries -cited above- who had to catch up in term of development) while I on the contrary read a lot about it and you have the audacity to contradict me and insulting me at the same time. Not knowing something is perfectly normal, pretending you know something when you don't makes you a total idiot and a liar.
You say I minimized the role of foreign investments in the economic growth of South Korea. I say you and your neo-liberal literature overemphasizing it. We will let statistics decide. Domestic investments was much more important for South Korea development than foreign investments. As it is the case everywhere around the world. Local banking and local investments sectors is something that is fundamental to build as it was the case in all countries in the world.
When Park Chung Hee took power. The state of South Korea was pitiful. In a similar state than many African countries today. Too much dependence on foreigners. The main goal of Park Chung Hee was to reverse the situation left to him by previous puppet governments. He did that by initializing a ideology of "Self-Suffiency" (support to Koran enterprises, South Koran conglomerates, education, research, agriculture, diversification of trading partners (including regional tradings with other asian nations), etc.).
Other countries like the China, Scandinavian countries, Germany, and the USA/Japan (both earlier) did something similar.
Here you can see that the proportion of FDI against Domestics investments was only 0.09% in 1980. You are clearly the one who overemphasize it. What is fundamental in the development of every country is development the local banking and investments sectors (which is what all developed countries did), which will lead to the development of enterprises and industrial sectors through domestic investments and initiatives.
I like you but now, kindly shut your yap and learn. This thread is a book proposition thread. Take the opportunity to read books written by Park Chung Hee. He actually been there (SKorea was in similar state than many African countries today when he took power), done that (reverse the situation through his policies of "self-sufficiency"). The ideology of "Self-reliance" was the ideology directing every government actions (from the support to conglomerates and enterprises to Korean research (R&D), FDI restrictions, foreign loans, agriculture, education, etc). You can only get it, when you read it.
If African countries do something similar to that. Half the victory would have been won. The main ideology of Park Chung Hee was one of "Self-Reliance". Everybody interested should google it, read his books, etc. Every developed nations did this at one point of their history.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: There is no such think as a water powered cars. It is is impossible. Anyone who believes it exist don't understand the Laws of Thermodynamic. Even "fuel cells " is a waste of time.
Nuclear, fusion (if possible ), solar , hydro, wind are "true" alternatives. But solar and wind don't give bang for buck. They are only "friendly" to the environment.
posted
I am not going to debate someone who don't understand college level laws of physics.
This is NOT a car running on water. They use water to create H2 which is used as fuel. The byproduct is water. It short it is a Fuel Cell. Not a car running on water
quote:
Stan Meyer's Dune Buggy that ran on water. "Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel" in an ICE motor.
They are essentially splitting the H2O molecule(electrolysis) creating the H2 which is then used as fuel. Anyone in the know understands that no energy is "gained"/released.
Bottomline - car is not running on water. It is a misconception that fools the ignorant. It is a stunt ie gimmick.
BTW - I worked in the industry, Alternative Energy, as a youngster out of school. No longer work in it.
Back on topic?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh! I just saw this. They used an ICE. More proof it is fake. Do you understand how an ICE works. They cannot have possible used an ICE(internal combustion Engine). The Fuel Cell used electrodes ie essentially it is electric based.
As I said...bogus.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't have to believe me. Some us of believe the earth was created in six days. Knock yourselves out.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I am not going to debate someone who don't understand college level laws of physics.
This is NOT a car running on water. They use water to create H2 which is used as fuel. The byproduct is water. It short it is a Fuel Cell. Not a car running on water
quote:
Stan Meyer's Dune Buggy that ran on water. "Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel" in an ICE motor.
They are essentially splitting the H2O molecule(electrolysis) creating the H2 which is then used as fuel. Anyone in the know understands that no energy is "gained"/released.
Bottomline - car is not running on water. It is a misconception that fools the ignorant. It is a stunt ie gimmick.
BTW - I worked in the industry, Alternative Energy, as a youngster out of school. No longer work in it.
Back on topic?
XMan,
So you get h2 created from water, but the car is not running on water? ,
So the found a way to get energy from Water, yet the car does not run on water?
Why would the news cast post the inventor?
Also watch the video again, the inventor is showing pouring water inside the car and driving the buggy!
What are you arguing Xman???
Not all inventions are perfect from the Jump, dude.
Was the plane from the wright brothers a perfect invention??? or did Others build off that 1st invention?
stop trying to win debates and just Think
EDIT
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Actually it sounds like you're the one trying to "win debates", or perhaps more accurately, save face. I suspect you don't believe the nonsense you're posting, and I doubt you're convincing anyone else. You chose to intervene in my discussion with Amun-Ra on his behalf and now, not only do you look wilful and obstinate, but also ridiculous.
However, given some of the crap you post on this site, your exposure and embarrassment are well-deserved.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
King. As I said. I am not going to go into the Laws of Thermodynamics here.
A car cannot run on water...especially using ICE
=====
The West and The Rest of Us - White Predators and the African Elite by Chenweizu
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Actually it sounds like you're the one trying to "win debates", or perhaps more accurately, save face. I suspect you don't believe the nonsense you're posting, and I doubt you're convincing anyone else. You chose to intervene in my discussion with Amun-Ra on his behalf and now, not only do you look wilful and obstinate, but also ridiculous.
However, some of the crap you post on this site, your exposure and embarrassment are well-deserved.
No, Please show where I have been embarassed?
I showed a Video of a Buggy driving using water
You posted comments from undercovers who are meant to turn people away from the Truth. You even stated that you read the comments of the ones who watched the Video, That was how you claimed you debunked the video
so basically you could not debunk the video so you read what an agent can post and since you agree with what he/she posted against the video you post that!!! Yet I'm Embarassed? Bahahahahaha
You don't think that the FBI, CIA etc sends there agents to websites to turn people from even thinking about alternatives to destruction??? Or to incite racist insults???
Gehazi don't be stupid??OUT!!!
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
What the gehazi redacted is not writing is that this is Just One avenue that can be explored to relieve the pressures of fossil fuels that destroys the environment etc.
destrution is what they peddle because the more the People Pay for there stuff, the richer the gehazis, pharisees etc get while The People build Up they eat the Fruits of The Labour
Rob from the Poor to feed the rich type tings.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What irks me in all of this is you don't know shitt about the development in South Korea (and many other countries -cited above- who had to catch up in term of development) while I on the contrary read a lot about it and you have the audacity to contradict me and insulting me at the same time. Not knowing something is perfectly normal, pretending you know something when you don't makes you a total idiot and a liar.
Dumbass, if you knew so much about South Korea then you would not have been debunked n detail above. If you "knew shiit" you would know how important US aid was to South Korea's initial development. You say your are so well read on the topic. If you were, you would not be making the BS claims that are exposed above. Who do you think you are fooling?
You say I minimized the role of foreign investments in the economic growth of South Korea. I say you and your neo-liberal literature overemphasizing it. No one is "overemphasizing" it. Your own boy Park, whom you keep urging me to "read" says so. Let's quote your own boy again:
"This represents 52% of the total budget.. thus more than half the national budget depended on the United States.. It showed, dramatically, that our government would have to instantly close down if US aid were withheld or withdrawn."
We will let statistics decide. Domestic investments was much more important for South Korea development than foreign investments.
You are once again attempting to shift the goalposts. No one ever said foreign investment was more important than domestic, and the issue at hand is foreign aid from the US and etc, not direct investments from all over the world.
As it is the case everywhere around the world. Local banking and local investments sectors is something that is fundamental to build as it was the case in all countries in the world. Who ever argued otherwise? And isn't "local investment" obvious, in that every country has actual people within its borders who "invest"? Gee, is this another obvious insight of yours Captain Obvious?
When Park Chung Hee took power. The state of South Korea was pitiful. In a similar state than many African countries today. Too much dependence on foreigners. And The main goal of Park Chung Hee was to reverse the situation left to him by previous puppet governments. He did that by initializing a ideology of "Self-Suffiency" (support to Koran enterprises, South Koran conglomerates, education, research, agriculture, diversification of trading partners (including regional tradings with other asian nations), etc.).
None of this supports your minimization attempts, as already shown in detail above. You keep repeating things that are NOT at issue, as if you are making some kind of profound argument.
Here you can see that the proportion of FDI against Domestics investments was only 0.09% in 1980. You are clearly the one who overemphasize it.
Not at all. I never said domestic took a back seat to foreign, and on one ever said S.Korea was a static place that would keep receiving the same amount of US aid in 1945 as in say 1980 or 2016. Let me again quote from what I said on page 1:
Yes, I don;t totally disagree, but keep in mind that SOuth Korea got plenty of aid from the US, billions worth. Not saying that said aid is DIRECTLY responsible for the SK takeoff, but too often people seem to think the takeoff was out of the blue.
---------------------------------------
But AGAIN, you are attempting distraction to something NOT at issue. We have been discussing foreign AID for the past 2 pages. Your diversionary tactic of shifting the goalposts to foreign direct investment not only doesn't help your case, but is laughably lame. Let's quote again from what I pointed out earlier:
Post-war Korean economic development is, in part, due to well-managed development aid. For most of the post-war period, Korea was an aid recipient. The Korean government successfully utilised this financial assistance to overcome various domestic challenges through state-led projects designed to spur economic development (Kim J., 2011; Evans, 1995). According to Korean government estimates, the country received USD 12.7 billion between 1945 and the late 1990s, ‘which helped spur economic development and decrease poverty’ (OECD, 2008: 9). As illustrated by Figure 1, this aid was primarily provided by the United States, Japan and the European DAC members. Japanese loans issued in 1981 constituted the last significant aid assistance Korea received." South Korea’s Transition from Recipient to DAC Donor: Assessing Korea’s Development Cooperation Policy 2013. https://poldev.revues.org/1535
As I already demonstrated with this quote made a page ago- aid was a significant factor- didn't say it was the only factor or that it would last forever in the same way. Shifting the goalposts will not help you.
I like you but now, kindly shut your yap and learn. This thread is a book proposition thread. Take the opportunity to read books written by Park Chung Hee. He actually been there (SKorea was in similar state than many African countries today when he took power), done that (reverse the situation through his policies of "self-sufficiency"). The ideology of "Self-reliance" was the ideology directing every government actions (from the support to conglomerates and enterprises to Korean research (R&D), FDI restrictions, foreign loans, agriculture, education, etc).
You keep saying "read Park Chung Hee" but you, yourself, have not produced a single direct quote by Park. It is I who posted the detailed citations above, quoting your own boy Park, whom you use as a "supporting" reference. You have not put anything on the table by Park. What's taking you so long, if as you claim, you already have all these books in front of you? Could it be that you were bluffing, thinking no one could possibly have anything on hand by Park, not realizing that it could be easily found on the web? If you aren't bluffing, what's taking you so long in quoting direct from Park? I already did, and I don't have his books in front of me. Why are you taking so long?
You can only get it, when you read it.
But it is obvious you have not read your own references. But let's go with what you say for a moment. If you have read Park, how come you cannot produce a quote from him showing that foreign aid is of no account, or was not important to South Korean development?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: No one ever said foreign investment was more important than domestic,
Great, I agree with you on this. Maybe it was just a miscommunication between you and me. Domestic investments is always much more important than foreign.
I know *you* want to talk about aid but *I* want to talk about the South Korean initiatives (what Park Chung Hee and his people did) to promote the development of his country (self-sufficiency ideology, education, research (R&D), support to South Korean enterprises and conglomerates, FDI restrictions, South Korean capital development, diversification of trading partners, etc). Other developed countries did similar things. This is what African countries need to do to promote economic growth and development.
Words like 'important-overplayed-minimizing-overemphasizing-significant' are subjective words. That's why I prefer to use statistics.
According to the book "South Korea in the Fast Lane - Economic Development and Capital Formation". Foreign aid (grants and loans) in 1966 was 2.3% of GDP while domestic investments was 20.9% of GDP (fdi is negligible at 0.2%). Clearly the domestic investments is much more important than foreign aid (ratio is 14%). In 1971, foreign aid was only 0.5% of GDP while domestic investments was 24.8% (ratio is 0.02%). So, domestic investments was much more important than foreign aid. The ratio is 99.8% in favor of domestic investments. So about 10 years after Park Chung Hee took power, foreign aid had become negligible in term of investments in the country.
1966 is the last year of Park Chung Hee first 5-Year Plan for Economic Development.
1971 is the last year of his second 5-Year Plan for Economic Development.
From what I recall, Park Chung Hee didn't talk much about foreign aid in his books because he didn't like it. The dependency toward foreign aid is a problem to be solved (as it's the case for many African countries today). His goal was always to reverse the dependency towards foreign aid urging South Koreans to "wake up". He successfully did it. He implemented a ideology of "self-sufficiency" as stated above to cut down the dependency toward foreign aid by previous puppets and incompetent governments. South Korea didn't grow economically mainly because of aid, but mainly because of South Korean initiatives as initiated by Park Chung Hee.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sense you don't believe your own nonsense--rowing back by any chance?:
quote: What the gehazi redacted is not writing is that this is Just One avenue that can be explored to relieve the pressures of fossil fuels that destroys the environment etc.
But look, if you seriously believe the idiocy that cars can run on water, then go ahead.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gehazi redacted: I sense you don't believe your own nonsense--rowing back by any chance?:
quote: What the gehazi redacted is not writing is that this is Just One avenue that can be explored to relieve the pressures of fossil fuels that destroys the environment etc.
But look, if you seriously believe the idiocy that cars can run on water, then go ahead.
What are you talking about redacted?
I showed You Videos Articles and Pictures of Water runned Cars, I showed You a Picture of a Water Runned Buggy, yet you continue to babble, Why?
Also I stated that was one avenue that can be explored. Why are You acting like you proved your case? You posted no videos, no articles, and no data, yet you act like you have won something, What did you Prove gehazi redacted?
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by redacted: [qb] ^ 'Cheese is cheese' Really? your inanities on this site, it's now wonder you come up with such drivel.
I told the guy to extrapolate. Something you also failed to do.
You might well be able to fly a test solar powered glider around the world, but in terms of speed and cargo capacity, does that mean it performs on a par with a 747? Will there ever be a solar powered 747?
Theoretically, you might be able to provide half of Europe's electricity needs from wind turbines...but what are the practicalities? What sort of numbers are we talking of? What sort of production capacity would be needed for producing these numbers?
Theoretically, you could provide the earth's electrical needs through solar power by covering just 1% of the earth's surface. Is that total surface (ocean and land mass) or just land mass? Even if it's just land mass, how big is the equivalent of 1% of the worlds land mass as surface area? France and the Iberian peninsula? What are the practicalities around doing this? What production capacity would be required?
Think
Listen redacted,
Fuel is Fuel.
I Hear that There is ways to use WATA or for You WATER to power cars, Does not need to be Electrcity, That's just 1 example.
So a Man or Woman drives a Car to Work (sadly, Try Public Transit) One Gets there inside 30 minutes the Other Arrives inside of 45 minutes,
should the Dude that took 45mins trade his car for the car that performed at 15mins less.
Chill redacted
Redacted I repost my 2nd post to you showing that I posted that Water is 1 example of alternitive fuel that can be explored to Heal the earth and ween peoples off of fossil oil, Please show where I have deviated.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: No one ever said foreign investment was more important than domestic,
Great, I agree with you on this. Maybe it was just a miscommunication between you and me. Domestic investments is always much more important than foreign.
I know *you* want to talk about aid but *I* want to talk about the South Korean initiatives (what Park Chung Hee and his people did) to promote the development of his country (self-sufficiency ideology, education, research (R&D), support to South Korean enterprises and conglomerates, FDI restrictions, South Korean capital development, diversification of trading partners, etc). Other developed countries did similar things. This is what African countries need to do to promote economic growth and development.
Words like 'important-overplayed-minimizing-overemphasizing-significant' are subjective words. That's why I prefer to use statistics.
According to the book "South Korea in the Fast Lane - Economic Development and Capital Formation". Foreign aid (grants and loans) in 1966 was 2.3% of GDP while domestic investments was 20.9% of GDP (fdi is negligible at 0.2%). Clearly the domestic investments is much more important than foreign aid (ratio is 14%). In 1971, foreign aid was only 0.5% of GDP while domestic investments was 24.8% (ratio is 0.02%). So, domestic investments was much more important than foreign aid. The ratio is 99.8% in favor of domestic investments. So about 10 years after Park Chung Hee took power, foreign aid had become negligible in term of investments in the country.
1966 is the last year of Park Chung Hee first 5-Year Plan for Economic Development.
1971 is the last year of his second 5-Year Plan for Economic Development.
From what I recall, Park Chung Hee didn't talk much about foreign aid in his books because he didn't like it. The dependency toward foreign aid is a problem to be solved (as it's the case for many African countries today). His goal was always to reverse the dependency towards foreign aid urging South Koreans to "wake up". He successfully did it. He implemented a ideology of "self-sufficiency" as stated above to cut down the dependency toward foreign aid by previous puppets and incompetent governments. South Korea didn't grow economically mainly because of aid, but mainly because of South Korean initiatives as initiated by Park Chung Hee.
Fair enough - I think we have cleared up the crossed wires. But based on what you say then, could South Korea be a model for some African countries? The foreign aid receded in importance, and while foreign direct investment was important for a time, that too receded. We know South Korea focused heavily on export industries, and was one of those export- driven "Asian tigers" but what else did they do? There must have been some internal things going on. What I am wondering is - yes- there would be certain things that are internal to S Korean culture such as the emphasis on Confucian style learning, or equivalent, but what things might be transferable to help Africa?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: foreign direct investment was important for a time,
Please, don't get angry or attack me for saying it but foreign investment was never important for the economic growth and development of South Korea in the last 50 years. In the same book (Fast Lane...), foreign investment was only 0.2% of the GDP between 1953-94. This is negligible.
Before Park Chung Hee took power South Korea was in a pitiful state economically. South Korea was in a situation similar to many current African countries today (without any significant amount of natural resources, which is almost a blessing in a way - as it cut down foreign interference and multinationals looting). Even Agriculture was not well developed. They were also colonized by Japan. So it's really what Park Chung Hee and South Korean people did after he took power that is important.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
No I have no wish to be doing any attacks. Peace. I may have overstated my case, but I think we have cleared up the thing above- three different categories in play - FDI, Aid and domestic. Re FDI, I would agree that in the last 50 years it might not be as huge a factor, compared to the big domestic dog South Korea has become. I fully credit SKorea with their internal dynamism, though I would also add that FDI still played a key role. Nothing wrong with this per se. Per one article:
"This study covers the time period from 1980-2009. This study attempts to determine empirical impact of FDI on South Korean economy using macroeconomic annual time series data. FDI, domestic investment, employment, export and human capital are considered as the endogenous variables for economic growth. The multiple regression are employed in this study. This study finds that there is a strong and positive impact of FDI on South Korean economic growth."
The author''s present a lot of backing statistics but I think it might be safe to say that FDI remained SOMEWHAT important in SOME sectors, but not as important as the domestic side of the house. FDI is a legit econ development tool. I think some African countries are benefiting from it. Look at Botswana- it is gaining from huge investments in its mineral industries even though the country is mostly desert with weak agriculture etc, and did not have the long advantages of the Asian countries.
FDI can be used to advantage- the trick is making sure that the benefits are spread around, and that elites do not rake' off too much, and that they are in the right areas. Why for example spend millions losing money on a national airline for "pride project" purposes when international carriers can do the job more cheaply and the millions saved can be used for more productive stuff- like building roads to help small farmers get their produce to market? Why uses scarce cash to build huge urban "showcase" hospitals when a network of small rural clinics and health centers might meet the urgent needs of the masses better?
And you are right about the multinational looting. African nations need to drive a lot harder bargain for their resources. Most likely the Chinese or Western multinational are playing one off against the other. If you don't give be concessions here, I will go to the next country over there, and their elites get the payoffs.
But what else did S. Korea do that might be transferrable, if at all? What's the breakdown? And how are the "divide and conquer" tactics of any looters to be beaten? Anyone?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: And you are right about the multinational looting. African nations need to drive a lot harder bargain for their resources.
I don't think they need to drive a harder bargain. It's like magical thinking. Harder than what? Haven't they tried it already? Africans need to vote for better leaders outside US/foreign interference and they need to develop their own resources themselves instead of dealing with multinationals (the looters). Keeping the majority ownership of companies for themselves. That's the main idea behind what practically every country did (either historically due to the absence of foreign multinationals, or through legislation and government policies).
South Korea has become a developed (high income) country, so FDI is not one-way street. South Korean investors also invest some of their money internationally. It's like a 2-way street. To give a different perpective: FDI for New Zealand averaged 5.7% of total investment between 1951-1982. Australia 7.3% over the same period.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Child of the KIng You've posted links to implausible websites and you think you've got something? I could suggest a range of idiocy and link to supportive sites as reference. You've been told by xyyman, someone who worked in alternatives, that cars can't run on water but you won't quit.
I showed You Videos Articles and Pictures of Water runned Cars, I showed You a Picture of a Water Runned Buggy, yet you continue to babble, Why?
Also I stated that was one avenue that can be explored. Why are You acting like you proved your case? You posted no videos, no articles, and no data, yet you act like you have won something, What did you Prove gehazi redacted?
What on earth is there to disprove? If you made your claims so earnestly in public, you'd be thought of as a crackpot.
quote:Also I stated that was one avenue that can be explored.
No, your suggestion was more confident than that--what you stated was:
quote: I Hear that There is ways to use WATA or for You WATER to power cars, Does not need to be Electrcity, That's just 1 example.
But again, if you're happy believing in this rubbish -- although I suspect this is more about face-saving -- then go ahead. People reading this thread can draw their own conclusions.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by redacted: @Child of the KIng You've posted links to implausible websites and you think you've got something? I could suggest a range of idiocy and link to supportive sites as reference. You've been told by xyyman, someone who worked in alternatives, that cars can't run on water but you won't quit.
I showed You Videos Articles and Pictures of Water runned Cars, I showed You a Picture of a Water Runned Buggy, yet you continue to babble, Why?
Also I stated that was one avenue that can be explored. Why are You acting like you proved your case? You posted no videos, no articles, and no data, yet you act like you have won something, What did you Prove gehazi redacted?
What on earth is there to disprove? If you made your claims so earnestly in public, you'd be thought of as a crackpot.
quote:Also I stated that was one avenue that can be explored.
No, your suggestion was more confident than that--what you stated was:
quote: I Hear that There is ways to use WATA or for You WATER to power cars, Does not need to be Electrcity, That's just 1 example.
But again, if you're happy believing in this rubbish -- although I suspect this is more about face-saving -- then go ahead. People reading this thread can draw their own conclusions.
Gehazi redacted, I REPOSTED MY WHOLE 2nd post To YOU I said from the Start that is 1 example!!! What are you trying to do Twist words and Bring Up Xmans name for...You know so much Prove your Point stop Bringing Up Xmans name and post the reasons why water can't be used as fuel, post the links, articles proving that that is impossible, also Post why Even Xman You Knowthe Brotha You brought up stated that they got H2 from Water and then explain to me that since You get H2 from separating the water, how that is not using Water as Fuel!
Look at when the 1st Plane was Invented, the plane as Great as It is Now, did People build Up the Plane? or was the plane an complete invention from the beginning, was wright brothers Laughed at for trying to Fly Yes or No. Now think of Water Fuel related inquires. Sad that the Inventor died before he could show Others How to incorporate Water as Fuel, did the wright Brothers die when they finally flew Inside the Sky?
All I see is words with no substance, no facts, just you twisting my post when You even Post that I called Water 1 example...Whats Your Point again Gehazi redacted
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. I'm not going to. Because its crap. Water will not be a replacement for petrol. It's as simple as that.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by redacted: ^More garbled nonsense.
Deal with it. Xyyman, who has worked with alternatives, has told you that cars cannot run on water.
Beyond making clear my incredulity, there's nothing more to add really.
Bahahahah, Look how the Gehazi proves his case "Xman Said this, Xman Said That" dude listen to yourself while you run!
You 1st posted comments from some poster who read the Article about the Salt Water car and think for some odd reason that you proved Your case, How desperate are You dog?
Your proof is "Well this dude commented blah blah blah so I don't believe" your relying on other peoples words cause You have no proof for or against, you just trying to urge People to stay with the fossil fuels that destroy the environment, Pollutes the Sky, and causes coughing illnesses.
Then You jump back inside when Xman said what he said.
Then you claim that other areas wont be good because the alternitives are not as "fast" as the fossil fuel so you think that stops people from changing, Cause alternitives are not as Convenient as fossil fuel!!!
Do you hear yourself Gehazi redacted???
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: you just trying to urge People to stay with the fossil fuels that destroy the environment, Pollutes the Sky, and causes coughing illnesses.
Really. Am I?
Laughable clown.
quote: Bahahahah, Look how the Gehazi proves his case "Xman Said this, Xman Said That" dude listen to yourself while you run!
All I'm seeing here is your stupidity and refusal to face reality. You persist in your nutjobbery even after Xyyman tells you what the score is. You can dismiss my citing him and comments from your article, but all it does is make you look even more ridiculous.
Face it--
Water will not replace petrol as a fuel. Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
,
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Maybe it was just a miscommunication between you and me. Domestic investments is always much more important than foreign. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
at 15mins less. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic