The Housing Bubble

since environmentalism is more about religion than science

“Religion” is the new Koch word popping up all over the net now.

Back in 2009 climate change was a “cult”, now it’s a “Religion” all over the net. I guess the science just got much bigger than a cult so now it’s a “religion”. (These words are found out in focus groups and disseminated by PR firms) Adan fully follows the current scripts and infuses his posts with all the current buzzwords and twisted contexts.

Right wing smears scientific consensus on global warming as a “cult”
Research December 8, 2009

http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/12/08/right-wing-smears-scientific-consensus-on-globa/157856

Following the release of reportedly stolen emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, numerous right-wing media figures have attempted to undermine the case for action against global climate change by comparing the scientific consensus that human activity is driving global warming to a “cult.” However, as the Union of Concerned Scientists has stated, the scientific understanding of climate change is “based on the work of thousands of scientists from hundreds of research institutions” and “[t]he e-mails provide no information that would affect” this understanding.

Thanks for posting a 2009 article, now you can explain why we are not any warmer in 2014 than 2009, despite the amount of co2 in the atmosphere by 8 ppm during that time period. Actually, you probably cannot since as a paid Democratic talking points troll you can only post what you receive.

Yeah. Lola has a penchant for posting years old data articles like she did yesterday.

BTW, that should be 10 ppm.

FWIW, those “backup power plants” already exist.

Anyway, I fail to see how not wanting to spew pollutants into the atmosphere is somehow “cultish” or “religion”

Denver’s brown cloud is very real. It isn’t as bad as it used to be (and it was really bad in the past) mostly because of all those “cultish” environmental regulations.

And FWIW, that link you posted makes a case for wind power.

now you can explain why we are not any warmer in 2014 than 2009,

Are you as dumb as you sound or does it bother you that you are paid for most here to think you’re dumb as the price paid for fooling some fools?

“Global Warming Has Stopped”? How to Fool People Using “Cherry-Picked” Climate Data

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/

The current favorite argument of those who argue that climate changes isn’t happening, or a problem, or worth dealing with, is that global warming has stopped. Therefore (they conclude) scientists must be wrong when they say that climate change is caused by humans, worsening, and ultimately a serious environmental problem that must be addressed by policy makers.

The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth.

The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth.

The data is there for anyone to see and I have posted it more times than I can count. Just show us NASA’s own numbers for 1998 and then 2013 and tell me how even someone as dumb as you can argue that global warming has not stopped. In fact, since that story was written in 2012, your side does not even argue it has not stopped they just make a semantics argument that it is a pause. Try to keep up even with your limited IQ.

Just show us NASA’s own numbers for 1998 and then 2013 and tell me how even someone as dumb as you can argue that global warming has not stopped.

Hey? Did you just do this again? I think you d-i-d. (You are soo tricky uh?

All of the false claims take advantage of one fundamental truth about the average temperature of our planet: it varies a little, naturally, from year to year. Some years are a bit warmer than average and some are a bit colder than average because of El Niños, La Niñas, cloud variability, volcanic activity, ocean conditions, and just the natural pulsing of our planetary systems. When you filter these out, the human-caused warming signal is clear. But natural variability makes it possible for scurrilous deceivers to do a classic “no-no” in science: to cherry-pick data to support their claims.

They pick particular years or groups of years; they pick particular subsets of data. But when you look at all the data, or when you look at long-term trends, the only possible conclusion is that the Earth is warming – precisely the conclusion the scientific community has reached based on observations and fundamental physics. Forbes article posted above.

Just show us NASA’s own numbers for 1998 and then 2013 and tell me how even someone as dumb as you can argue that global warming has not stopped.

Did you just do this again? (You’re tricky but smart people are on to your jive. )

“All of the false claims take advantage of one fundamental truth about the average temperature of our planet: it varies a little, naturally, from year to year. Some years are a bit warmer than average and some are a bit colder than average because of El Niños, La Niñas, cloud variability, volcanic activity, ocean conditions, and just the natural pulsing of our planetary systems. When you filter these out, the human-caused warming signal is clear. But natural variability makes it possible for scurrilous deceivers to do a classic “no-no” in science: to cherry-pick data to support their claims.

Was reading a old time life book called “Earth” written back in 1964, it talked about CO2 and global warming and how ice ages may never come back in the future because of CO2.

Not a new theory.

Here are some of NASA’s statements about climate change.

¨The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.¨

¨Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.¨

I asked you last week why the vast majority of scientists would believe in ¨global warming¨ if it’s so obviously not true, but you never answered me, dan. I’m as open as the next guy to a good conspiracy theory, but I can’t come up with a reasonable one that fits. Can you?

“Not a new theory.”

Certainly not. It was proposed by Svante Arrhenius over 100 years ago.

Rio, listen to this podcast:

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/03/john_christy_an.html

A good civil discussion, IMHO.

The scientists “believe” because it is politically correct for them to do so. Same as believing in green companies being needed when they usually are money losers absent big handouts.

You could ask them any variety of politically changed questions and if forced to go on the record they would tell you what they “believe.”

Scientists can’t even figure out whether carbs and fat are good or bad. Just a bunch of fads.

“I asked you last week why the vast majority of scientists would believe in ¨global warming¨ if it’s so obviously not true…”

Whether it is true or not this generation may or may not see the proof. That aside, it is an error for the healthy mind to accept anything as fact because of general acceptance by others. The majority of mankind will come to believe even the most ridiculous or psychopathic themes if they are presented as fact by trusted voices of authority. There are many examples just in the 20th century of whole nations torn to pieces because of ideas believed by the “vast majority” that simply were not true.

The skeptic should be respected at least as a reminder that consensus does not prove anything, loud voices even less so. If it weren’t for skeptics, we wouldn’t even have this blog.

It just reminds this skeptic of the small minority of scientists who said tobacco was safe back in the 70’s. Turned out they were almost all funded by the tobacco companies, and the vast majority of scientists who said tobacco was harmful were right. Most of the research that claims to disprove global warming seems to be sponsored by people with a financial interest in there being no global warming, or at least no response to it. That sets off my bs detector. I definitely don’t buy the ¨scientists are members of a cult¨ explanation, or that green industries could ever exert more economic and political influence than fossil fuel industries. So I don’t see the mechanism that could perpetrate such a fraud on the world.

‘global warming’

One of the biggest non-issues ever. No one is going to do anything about pollution, so what difference does it make? How many global accords and 5 or 10 year plans have to come and go with no action? Even the truest believers in global warming do nothing but talk. China just ditched their one child policy. That alone kills any chance of reducing global pollution.

It may well be hopeless to try to stop it, but I disagree with the anti-science bent of many of the deniers.

How though can the ultimate outcome be so over looked? You know what I think? Lot’s of people like to fight and bicker, and don’t care if they accomplish anything by it.

¨How though can the ultimate outcome be so over looked? ¨

I don’t know. I guess some people don’t care what happens in the future, perhaps thinking theyĺl be dead, or they’ve so politicized the issue that they can’t even approach it rationally any more. Or the reality of it scares them. Denial is always a powerful force.

“That aside, it is an error for the healthy mind to accept anything as fact because of general acceptance by others. The majority of mankind will come to believe even the most ridiculous or psychopathic themes if they are presented as fact by trusted voices of authority.”

In individuals insanity is the exception. In groups, parties, nations and epochs it is the rule.

– Friedrich Nietzsche

So we can only believe something if it’s a minority view, even in science? That fails the logic test.

Drill, baby, drill!

or

How I learned to stop worrying and love the brown cloud.

Our local utility, Xcel Energy, says that it pencils out (in Colorado) without subsidies.

why are China and Germany building wind farms like mad?

China yes but Germany no. Germany has always been more solar than wind but due to the high cost of alternative energy sources and trying to shutdown nuclear powers, it has turned back to coal in a major way. China due to its low labor costs can produce wind turbines cheaply and site them without environmental opposition and it does not care how many raptors it kills. But the biggest reason China burns 4 billion tons a coal a year and is simply running out of coal.

Good for them! Did they explain to you how they have raised your rates to help pay for it?

I can understand Germany’s agenda of burning up all that cheap Russian gas now to provide electricity later.

As for China, can you explain why they are building huge ghost cities?

Can you explain why Spain and France were building solar arrays like crazy and now are not?

You will never hear this on NPR or read about it in the U.S. MSM but this is true story about Germany and the impact of renewables on the working class”

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html

¨I can understand Germany’s agenda of burning up all that cheap Russian gas now to provide electricity later.¨

Shouldn’t we all follow that strategy?

Excerpt from link about to post:

Altmaier and others are on a mission to help people save money on their electricity bills, because they’re about to receive some bad news. The government predicts that the renewable energy surcharge added to every consumer’s electricity bill will increase from 5.3 cents today to between 6.2 and 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour — a 20-percent price hike.

German consumers already pay the highest electricity prices in Europe. But because the government is failing to get the costs of its new energy policy under control, rising prices are already on the horizon. Electricity is becoming a luxury good in Germany, and one of the country’s most important future-oriented projects is acutely at risk.

Another excerpt from the Spiegel article:

For society as a whole, the costs have reached levels comparable only to the euro-zone bailouts. This year, German consumers will be forced to pay €20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants — electricity with a market price of just over €3 billion. Even the figure of €20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project. Solar panels and wind turbines at times generate huge amounts of electricity, and sometimes none at all. Depending on the weather and the time of day, the country can face absurd states of energy surplus or deficit.

If there is too much power coming from the grid, wind turbines have to be shut down. Nevertheless, consumers are still paying for the “phantom electricity” the turbines are theoretically generating. Occasionally, Germany has to pay fees to dump already subsidized green energy, creating what experts refer to as “negative electricity prices.”

On the other hand, when the wind suddenly stops blowing, and in particular during the cold season, supply becomes scarce. That’s when heavy oil and coal power plants have to be fired up to close the gap, which is why Germany’s energy producers in 2012 actually released more climate-damaging carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than in 2011.

If there is still an electricity shortfall, energy-hungry plants like the ArcelorMittal steel mill in Hamburg are sometimes asked to shut down production to protect the grid. Of course, ordinary electricity customers are then expected to pay for the compensation these businesses are entitled to for lost profits.

Good for them! Did they explain to you how they have raised your rates to help pay for it?

We have some of the lowest rates in the nation.

The article says:

¨The experts propose changing the system to resemble a model long successful in Sweden. If implemented, it would eliminate the more than 4,000 different subsidies currently in place. Instead of bureaucrats setting green energy prices, they would be allowed to develop indepedently on a separate market.¨

Sounds like the Germans botched the implementation, not that wind energy doesn’t work.

I think you are assuming too much. Wind power is expensive in all of Europe. Germany is not an ideal place for solar or wind but cost is not a factor for the greens, the more people that freeze the death all the better it is population control.

“We have some of the lowest rates in the nation.”

Why do you think that is?

You will never hear this on NPR or read about it in the U.S. MSM but this is true story about Germany and the impact of renewables on the working class”

Check this out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/world/europe/germanys-effort-at-clean-energy-proves-complex.html

from the article:

BERLIN — It is an audacious undertaking with wide and deep support in Germany: shut down the nation’s nuclear power plants, wean the country from coal and promote a wholesale shift to renewable energy sources.

German families are being hit by rapidly increasing electricity rates, to the point where growing numbers of them can no longer afford to pay the bill. Businesses are more and more worried that their energy costs will put them at a disadvantage to competitors in nations with lower energy costs, and some energy-intensive industries have begun to shun the country because they fear steeper costs ahead.

MSM bias doesn’t work the way that you think it does.

“Shouldn’t we all follow that strategy?”

We all are, more or less, which bids up the current prices and speeds depletion while we borrow the funds to do so. Basically we burn up our resources like there is no tomorrow and put it on the next generation’s bill. That seems to be the way everything works!

I think one article that appeared in the NYT hardly shows that the MSM is adequately covering the issue.

“You will never hear this on NPR or read about it in the U.S. MSM” Adan

And

“I think one article that appeared in the NYT hardly shows that the MSM is adequately covering the issue.” Adan

Do….Not….Reconcile……

You will never hear this on NPR or read about it in the U.S. MSM

Just NYT, USNews, Businessweek’s Green Policy report, etc. But keep spouting total BS. Makes you look good. Do you even know your own country?

Learning From Germany’s Clean Energy Missteps

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/09/20/for-us-germany-offers-a-cautionary-clean-energy-tale

American clean energy advocates like to tout the latest European energy accomplishments as proof that the United States is falling behind. Clean energy provides 25 percent of Germany’s energy demand! Germany has the greatest share of wind and solar among the G20 countries!

These are important accomplishments, to be sure. But this rapid growth has come at a cost: the highest energy prices in Europe. Are there ways we can achieve the milestones that Germany has reached while avoiding the economic downside of high costs? A new report by the respected German newspaper Der Spiegel provides some hard truths, and a look at three important lessons for us in the United States:

we burn up our resources like there is no tomorrow and put it on the next generation’s bill.

Perfect description of AGW with “our resources” being the earth’s ability to sustain human life, health and advancement.

If the discussion was about AGW, we would caution you not to double your emissions in order to reduce them.

“We have some of the lowest rates in the nation.”

Why do you think that is?

For a variety of reasons. But wind hasn’t impacted our costs.

we burn up our resources like there is no tomorrow and put it on the next generation’s bill

You support a president that has about doubled the national debt and you talk about the next generation’s bill? What chutzpah. Most of the people on this board did not know about Germany’s high price energy crisis and this board is far better informed than the average citizen. We have five stories a day on yahoo and similar sites talking about what will happen if the AGW models are correct, even treating the model’s predictions as facts and I am suppose to be impressed by a few stories telling about the difficulties that Germany has faced in implementing the CAGW agenda?

You support a president that has about doubled the national debt and you talk about the next generation’s bill? What chutzpah.

No, here’s the chutzpah: (Or the total idiocy and brainwashing more likely.)

The right freaks out about “the next generation’s bill” in fiat money that may as well be created on a laptop at Starbucks by the Fed. (Something that’s not totally real)

But then doesn’t give a squat or even lies about “the next generation’s bill” which will come due by us totally wrecking the only planet we have. (Something VERY real)

I am suppose to be impressed by a few stories telling about the difficulties that Germany has

Yes. You should totally “be impressed” that we catch on to your script of saying something as dumb and shifty as:

“You will never hear this on NPR or read about it in the U.S. MSM”

Be impressed.

For a variety of reasons. But wind hasn’t impacted our costs.

Eastern Colorado and parts of New Mexico are ideal places for wind power. Cheap flat land with high winds and no people. It is when you try to use wind power on expensive land near to people where the deficiencies in wind become apparent. This includes a lot of noise pollution.

I think one article that appeared in the NYT hardly shows that the MSM is adequately covering the issue.

Most Americans don’t have much interest in foreign news. The travails of Germany’s energy sector is a pretty obscure interest.

¨we burn up our resources like there is no tomorrow and put it on the next generation’s bill¨

Seems more like we burn our resources today to prepare for the time when those resources run out. It may burn the resources a little faster to prepare, but we will one day run out of those resources whether we prepare or not, so it would seem better to have a renewable energy system developed and in place when that happens, rather than just going dark.

“burn the resources…”

I look at it a little differently. We need eventually a new energy source or we will go back to the woodstove. As it goes let’s say we have 100 years to figure this out before oil/gas/coal run out. We could spend that down to 50 years deploying wrong technology that won’t even be standing in 25 years. Alternatively we could conserve and give ourselves 200 years to do R&D. I think option 2 has less chance of sudden darkness.

I find it hard to believe that building solar and wind power will double the burn time of our current resources. Again, I have to ask for a link. Call me a skeptic.

Sorry, I don’t have links at the ready. I made the numbers up out of thin air trying to illustrate an idea. That’s all.

My electric bill is less than $30 seven months of the year.

“My electric bill is less than $30 seven months of the year”

So is mine.

We’re basing national and global policy on being “cool kids” now? Please please tell me you aren’t serious.

This is in response to the posts below, about our declining standing in the world.

IMHO, we’re paying the wrong people to breed regardless of race. To the generation that maybe can be saved: the evidence should be as clear as Sheriff Arpaio’s Phoenix. You want to get out of these surroundings. Ask some responsible adult what it takes. There’s one in every neighborhood. There’s even some in Detroit.

There’s a lot you can do to compensate for society’s ills. First is, prioritize larnin’ over hanging with the homeys. Or whatever it is they do. And have a thought now about what you can make of your future. Practice by refusing to march in lock step with the hoodlums.

In the end, it is amazing how little it takes to make something out of nothing, if you can identify group think and keep your distance. That does require some discomfort. We all go through it. Get used to it.

The Chinese have a saying I like: “take what you want, and pay for it”.

/soapbox

Due to the scarcity of fossil fuels and improvements in green energy technology within twenty years green energy will be as cheap as fossil fuels and will be trending lower than them. I have no problem with research just lavish subsidies to deploy a technology that is not ready. The green lobby did not want to wait since they thought they would be competitive with fossil fuels decades ago. Thus, the latched on to global warming to justify their subsidies. The truth is that we do need to move from fossil fuels to green but we have 100 years not 10 or 20 years to do it to control AGW and the problem with resolve itself due to market forces, no need for government action beyond basis research and pilot programs. In the meantime fossil fuels can and should be burned cleaner so the haze over Denver does not have to occur and it would not take paying double the price for energy to achieve that goal. For the most part the leading industrial greens are just crony capitalists and the attacks on the Koch brothers is just their way of keeping the cash flowing from the government.

I agree but the EPA is continuing to bring out more stringent standards, costing us a lot in many diverse ways. I guess bureaucrats have to create a never ending need to make more laws.

I’m thinking life in New Zealand might be the ticket. Then I could be Blackhawk from NZ!!!

I see New Zealand mentioned every so often by a number of different HBB posters. Where is this coming from?

I’m thinking life in New Zealand might be the ticket. Then I could be Blackhawk from NZ!!!

You would move to a socialist hellhole like New Zealand? I heard they have socialized healthcare over there and they don’t broadcast any American sports either (because they’re all gay).

You would move to a socialist hellhole like New Zealand? I heard they have socialized healthcare over there and they don’t broadcast any American sports either (because they’re all gay).

A socialist hellhole where they are all gay? I call BS, if that were true Lola would move there in a minute.

A New Zealand is a socialist hellhole? No way, really?

It’s a running joke with the GF to retire to an island somewhere, eat fresh caught seafood everyday and escape before the SHTF.

I mentioned NZ because Top Gear had a show there, you know a car vs a sailboat race. I thought it looked like a cool place to visit.

A New Zealand is a socialist hellhole? No way, really?

No.

We’re Not No. 1! We’re Not No. 1!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/opinion/were-not-no-1-were-not-no-1.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article&_r=0

…This Social Progress Index ranks New Zealand No. 1, followed by Switzerland, Iceland and the Netherlands. All are somewhat poorer than America per capita, yet they appear to do a better job of meeting the needs of their people.

……a major new ranking of livability in 132 countries puts the United States in a sobering 16th place. We underperform because our economic and military strengths don’t translate into well-being for the average citizen.

In the Social Progress Index, the United States excels in access to advanced education but ranks 70th in health, 69th in ecosystem sustainability, 39th in basic education, 34th in access to water and sanitation and 31st in personal safety. Even in access to cellphones and the Internet, the United States ranks a disappointing 23rd, partly because one American in five lacks Internet access.

“It’s astonishing that for a country that has Silicon Valley, lack of access to information is a red flag,” notes Michael Green, executive director of the Social Progress Imperative, which oversees the index. The United States has done better at investing in drones than in children, and cuts in social services could fray the social fabric further.

I thought it looked like a cool place to visit.

You had to wait for an episode of Top Gear to see what New Zealand looked like? Ya know, there are a couple movies which show a lot of NZ.

Considering what part of the world that is, a more likely scenario is that the plane landed safely, Obama had the passengers executed, then had the plane loaded up with tons of fresh dogmeat from his boyhood village in Indonesia, then had the plane flown to Camp David so Obama can host dogmeat feasts and bathhouse orgies for all his 0.01%er butt buddies.

“It’s Obama’s fault that the Malaysian airliner vanished.

No, that was Bush’s fault.

The pilots ate a Michelle Obama school lunch and passed out due to low blood sugar.

Considering what part of the world that is, a more likely scenario is that the plane landed safely, Obama had the passengers executed, then had the plane loaded up with tons of fresh dogmeat from his boyhood village in Indonesia, then had the plane flown to Camp David so Obama can host dogmeat feasts and bathhouse orgies for all his 0.01%er butt buddies.

That’s as good an explanation any other, I guess.

Considering what part of the world that is, a more likely scenario is that the plane landed safely, Obama had the passengers executed, then had the plane loaded up with tons of fresh dogmeat from his boyhood village in Indonesia, then had the plane flown to Camp David so Obama can host dogmeat feasts and bathhouse orgies for all his 0.01%er butt buddies.

No, not plausible that you could get tons of fresh dogmeat from his village since they have already eaten most of the dogs. The rest sounds plausible and his butt buddy Lola probably could confirm it.

The comments on CNN are starting to wonder if there’s a conspiracy to make the English-speaking countries look good out of all of this:

Indonesian radar: fail
Malaysian military radar: fail
Corner-cutting Malaysian airline: fail
Malaysian PR: epic fail
Chinese ships: fail
British satellite calculations: win
Austrailian ships: win
Austrailian PR: win
American detectors and robots: win
Brave little Boeing pinger: epic win

Amy, what you going to do, I think Mr. Banker is in love with you?

Get a life.

And fetch me a bag of Cheetos.

And here’s an act of love that happened around here. Mobile gang rape.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/apollo-beach-rape-case-began-with-a-scream-in-an-alley/1147507

Something wrong with these folks, seriously wrong. Just hook ‘em up to a suction activated glory hole and leave ‘em.

Soon Nancy Pelosi and Jeb Bush will be telling us the statue of liberty says give us your rapists, your drunken drivers, your meth dealers, your social security number stealing immigrants.

You know it. I really, really hope they run him, I really do. It would be SUCH a three ring circus, you have NO idea. Like Romney, the consultants would suck every last penny out of his donors and the gaffes would be craptastic. JEB! has no sense of humor whatsoever.

I don’t know if the law is still on the books, but Fla had a law or statute that anyone in public housing who got convicted on drug charges, even drug related activity like possession, would be evicted, along with family members occupying the same unit.

Locally, much was made of the fact that he still occupied the governor’s mansion (public housing) after his daughter got popped for possession of drugs for which she did not have a prescription or some such thing.

That sounds like another argument for drug legalization.

Louis C.K. coffee shop

You’ve go some imagination Lola.

“We were all living in a campground (Down by the River!)”

In all good lies there is a kernel of truth, Lola is living in a hobo camp in D.C. down by the river.

Lola is living in a hobo camp in D.C. down by the river.

You have the creative imagination and the humor of a rock.

Do people run away from you at social gatherings?

It’s just that nutso stream of consciousness rambling that I love Lola for. That jenkum must be strong.

Frankly I think Lola enjoys getting schooled by you.

It’s hard to collect F.I.C.A. payments from those overseas workers, which in turn makes it cheaper to hire them.

The reality is that the laid off oldsters are being replaced by young pups that are offshore ??

Exactly…

It’s hard to collect F.I.C.A. payments from those overseas workers, which in turn makes it cheaper to hire them.

It is probable that their countries have something equivalent to FICA (Mexico sure does). But if their salaries are a fraction of what they are here, that point is moot.

The percentage increases are certainly by many multiples. They are expecting growth of around 7.5% this year not 7% and 2.5% growth in this country looks very questionable given the weak first quarter.

Dan, those high savers have a credit bubble that dwarfs the one in the US!

You would think so, judging by stories you read but if you take total debt both private and public it is not true. And that does not even include what we owe in entitlements.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2014/01/21/chinas-debt-how-serious-is-it/

Have a couple posts that have not posted but I will add this one since it is the other part of the equation the fact that unlike the U.S. China still has current account surplus. Not as large as Russia as a percentage of GDP but still large. Meanwhile we are the mirror image on Russia with a substantial current account deficit:

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

Even her initials AH are just the reverse of HA. I still think it is Goon or it could be Oxide both are clever enough to pull it off.

It’s still fun to play along. I guess I’m encouraging it though…

You are so stupid you cannot even see how you have just proven my point. Even at the end of Reagan’s presidency people wanted his presidency to continue, they have stopped calling for Obama to have a third term with three years left on this term. That is because Reagan was successful at reviving America in many ways and Obama is an epic fail in many ways. You should really move to Brazil where the average IQ is 87, then you would have an IQ only one standard deviation below the average person. Were you and Eric Holder twins or do you just share the same illegitimate father?

You are so stupid you cannot even see how you have just proven my point.

No because they dropped it because of the Iran/Contra scandal and he was getting senile.

Thus: my point is proven.

Reagan, the nation’s 40th president, was indeed very popular, but his polling numbers tailed off in the latter years of his administration….there was Iran-Contra, and that hurt his standing. NPR

The longer Obama is in office the more popular Reagan becomes just opposite what Obama hoped would happen, no president since WW II comes close to his ranking:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/962/Default.aspx

Excerpt:

NEW YORK, N.Y. - February 12, 2010 - As the country heads into a long weekend thanks to President’s Day, it is a time to reflect on past presidents – both good and bad. When considering all the presidents since World War II, there are clear choices as to who Americans believe is the best president and who they believe is worst. For best president, one-quarter say it is Ronald Reagan (25%) while just under than say it is Franklin Delano Roosevelt (22%). On the other side, three in ten Americans say George W. Bush is the worst president since World War II (31%) while 15% say it is Barack Obama.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,576 adults surveyed online between January 18 and 25, 2010 by Harris Interactive.

Further down the list of best presidents are John F. Kennedy (14%), Bill Clinton (11%) and Barack Obama, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower (all 4%). For worst presidents, Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon come next (both at 10%) then Bill Clinton (6%).

Not surprisingly, there are different partisan leanings towards best and worst president. Over half of Republicans (53%) say Ronald Reagan is the best president since World War II followed by 14% who say it is Franklin Roosevelt. Democrats are more divided. Over one-quarter say the best president is Franklin Roosevelt (28%) while 22% say it is Bill Clinton and 20% say it is John Kennedy. Among Independents, 27% say Ronald Reagan is the best president and 26% say it is Franklin Roosevelt.

When it comes to worst president, Democrats are more united; over half of them (53%) say it is George W. Bush with one in ten (11%) saying Richard Nixon. Three in ten Republicans (31%) say Barack Obama is the worst president followed by two in ten (19%) who say it is Jimmy Carter and one in ten (10%) who say Bill Clinton. For Independents, over one-quarter (28%) say George W. Bush is the worst president and 17% say it is Barack Obama.

Drudge story? Drudge does not write stories he links to stories appearing in the media including the NYT. So what are you saying that a story is not legitimate if Drudge links to it? That is so knee jerk leftwing.

I wasn’t saying anything. I was asking something. Where did the story come from? Who are these supporters?

If you’re saying that I’m ignorant of what Drudge does, that’s actually a compliment. Thanks