One of China's main issue is that it desires to present itself as a ?strong, democratic, civilised, harmonious and modern socialist country? but in reality like the Holy Roman Empire it's none of those things and they have to put a shit ton of economic energy and military effort into keeping up appearances. It all looks pretty good on paper! and then one day tens of thousands of people rioting in the streets burning government buildings and shit.
America likes to present itself as...um...America, such as it is. Sorta like a lady who rolls out of bed in her yoga pants and no makeup or shower to go to the grocery store it's more honest and way less effort.
I think it's an advantage. Of a sort. China government has to constantly police its citizens and American citizens tend to police themselves and each other
That's obviously a silly claim. There is no reason a war couldn't go on for days, weeks, months, even years.
Say what? The US didn't cut China off from any food supplies.
Not really true either. The govt has taken in enough money in new tariffs to pay for the $32 bil aid to the farmers and the two are directly related. Our debt is increasing because most domestic spending is out of control. Yet those silly libs running for president want more giveaways, like Ying Yang with his $12K a year giveaway for all adults.
Helsinki and some other cities in Finland have both district heating as well as district cooling networks. I do not know how much cooling water is used for district cooling in the summer from the relatively shallow Bay of Finland.
Really? That's what you think the US does? Trump seems to disagree with you feeling like he has to project strength all the time, everywhere no matter what. Previous administrations were not completely different although perhaps a bit more restrained.
LOL! The absurdity is just so total with that statement.
--
Rick C.
-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
So you think nuclear missiles are reloadable? Or that after the fallout ha s settled we would still try to sail across the oceans in ships that have n o electronics to invade a country on the other side of the world?
their food supplies from the world market, just as they are doing now with many food supplies which we have essentially cut them off from.
Then why are we subsidizing US farmers who used to sell to China? I suppos e you are going to tell me that China started the trade war?
. I wonder who is buying that debt and what the impact will be if they sto p buying US debt?
s
d.
Except that the tarrifs aren't all on agricultural imports. You and I are being taxed through the tarrifs to pay farmers to not grow crops. How is t hat different from welfare or the various government price support programs that no one likes?
Our debt is increasing because we are spending more than we take in through taxes. Clinton was able to actually reduce the debt because business boom ed and tax revenues rose, the opposite of what Trump is doing. Trump simpl y wants to see business grow while cutting the tax rate so government reven ues don't increase. Then when the bubble bursts things will really go bad.
again the rate in the US and much lower than many areas of the world. So there is no reason to believe they will be starving in the future either.
about financial dominance. Khrushchev wasn't talking about bombs when he s aid, "We will bury you!" He just couldn't pull it off.
Great, at least you understand something.
--
Rick C.
+-- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
"California frequently produces more solar energy than it can use during the middle of the day, then fires up gas plants in the evening to meet electricity demand after sundown."
So, why are we still paying perhaps 50% more for electricity during the day, and charging EVs at night?
No, you're making the false assumption that any war between the US and China would have to be a nuclear war, would involve invasion, etc.
Who started the trade war is irrelevant. It's a simple truth that the US didn't cut China off from any food supplies. China chose to levy tariffs on US food and/or to stop buying US food. That's why US shipments into China declined. We didn't cut them off.
Which is irrelevant. You were claiming the the $32 bil paid to farmers was with borrowed money. It's not fair to look at only one side of the equation. The trade war necessitated the welfare for farmers, but it was waged with tariffs and those tariffs have put money into the US treasury, ergo it's false to claim that it's borrowed money.
I didn't say or imply that it's different, but the reason it was needed was because Trump levied tariffs on Chinese goods. That brought in money more than sufficient to pay the farmers. Now, if you had some new welfare program, where it had some means to bring in the revenue to pay for it, then I would admit that and not say that the new welfare program is being paid with borrowed money. do you have any such program?
No, it's increasing because we are spending too much, govt is too big, there are too many govt programs. Oh, and who wants more? Why the Democrats. Funny you're here complaining about $32 bil for the farmers, but not about all the new free stuff all the Democrats running for president want. Like free healthcare for illegal aliens, that's a classic. Or free $12K income for everyone over the age of 18. That's orders of magnitude more than $32 bil.
Yeah it was the extension of the great boom that began in the 80s when Reagan got rid of the stupid, confiscatory 70% federal tax rates. You Democrats want to go back there. And Clinton only briefly had a balanced budget, it didn't even register in terms of any national debt reduction. A good portion of it was driven by the extraordinary stock market, internet bubble that could not last. In fact, the recession started in his last year in office.
Govt revenue has increased. It's just that govt SPENDING has increased even more. We have a spending problem, not a tax problem. And when you tax businesses, who do you think really winds up paying that tax?
air without heating it up or cooling it down as much.
re typically not inexpensive to install. In areas where water is plentiful they are more practical when water based rather than installation in the g round.
Huge
lude such heat exchangers. I haven't seen where single family residential uses any sort of fresh air exchanges. Adding a system like this won't prov ide any "savings" since the cost is not zero and with no system the cost is zero.
No, you have it mostly right. They are found in some newer, higher end home s though. The claims of saving a lot in summer and winter are only true if you run it to bring in fresh air and compare that to just bringing in outsi de air without a heat exchanger, eg opening windows with the heat or ac on. If you compare using it to simply not using it, then it's an energy loss.
Longterm investment in crop variants, husbandry of herd animals, and cultural preferences on foodstuffs, all argue for long-term unchanging conditions.
Do you like sorghum with your yams? Or sour cream on beet soup? Put rancid yak butter in your tea? Enjoy crunchy toasted termites? How flexible ARE people on these issues?
Nothing has ever changed. Nothing will ever change. The crops that we grown now are as good as they ever were and can never be better. Farmers are ignorant and will never change. More water and more CO2 can only make things worse.
sh air without heating it up or cooling it down as much.
h are typically not inexpensive to install. In areas where water is plenti ful they are more practical when water based rather than installation in th e ground.
n. Huge
include such heat exchangers. I haven't seen where single family residenti al uses any sort of fresh air exchanges. Adding a system like this won't p rovide any "savings" since the cost is not zero and with no system the cost is zero.
omes though. The claims of saving a lot in summer and winter are only true if you run it to bring in fresh air and compare that to just bringing in ou tside air without a heat exchanger, eg opening windows with the heat or ac on. If you compare using it to simply not using it, then it's an energy los s.
Even worse, the heat exchanger is far from perfect. Also, once installed any of these things have some energy loss most of the time. I've seen them in attics for example, with the air intake and exhaust in the ceilings. So, even when not in use, you have poorly insulated flex duct run through the attic and into the living space. That has to leak a lot of energy 24/7, obviously much worse in winter and summer.
Same here. These become important in tightly sealed houses, where there is less natural air exchange. Or for people in houses like we have who like lots of fresh air all the time. i'd use it once in awhile, like after a smoking oven.....
China is sending a great many students overseas to get educated at foreign universities, and their researchers are collaborating with people around th e world. As a rule, American researchers don't read paper published in non- American journals, or at least they didn't for most of my career.
That puts China ahead of the game in any cultural conflict. It wasn't true some years ago, but they've made an effort recently.
The fact that Europe and the US have off-shored a lot of their manufacturin g to China doesn't put China at any disadvantage in a trade war, even if Tr ump doesn't want to get well-informed enough to find that out.
Neither was the USSR, which is why they won the war for the rest of us.
John Larkin didn't get taught about that in school, and seems incapable of learning that his education had gaps.
Silly. Your body temperature is comfortable at 98.6F. Give it a one percent increase, it's 103F fever, and one percent less, it's 94 degrees chill.
While both are possible, neither is comfortable; you would seek a doctor.
'more water' ???
'more CO2' - that's an accumulation of waste gas, and yes, that CAN make things worse, if it acidifies oceans worldwide (for instance). Because that would be a discomfort for an entire WORLD of lifeforms, not just an individual.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.