As our vehicles get more and more fuel effiecient, we use less and less fuel, so we would be relying on less foreign oil, right?.........brilliant thinking, right? While that may be true, that we might actually buy less foreign oil, but the real issue here is profit for the foreigners, right? (Environment issues asside...) HAVE YOU ALL NOTICED THAT THE PRICE OF OIL/FUEL CONTINUES TO GO UP!? So what if we use less, we are spending more!
Hydrogen is the future fuel. Virtually zero emmissions. Why go electric? You still have to plug the thing into the wall! Where does electricity come from Billy Bob? Why, it comes from fossil fuels, for the most part.........
The problem with hydrogen (or so I recall) as an alternative fuel is that, despite its abundance as an element, usable deposits of pure hydrogen suitable for fuel cells are very difficult to find; in addition, hydrogen can be synthesized byt the process for doing so may create more air pollution than burning petroleum would. I'm not saying its impossible, just that its a long way off; long enough so that we can't look to it as a viable solution to our current problems.
MacBeth is correct. Technically speaking, communism has never been implemented, ever. What you think is communism is actually socialism, a means to reaching communism.
and capitalism is a means of reaching socialism.... anyway, im all for using BTUs from humans, like in the matrix, until we can figure out that solar power thing. preferably people from the third world and people that think america is evil.
What's the confusion? Marx outlined a state of what was supposed to be short termed oligarchial overseers to enable to transference of state from capitalist/monarchial/what have you to communist, entitled the Rule of the Proletariat. The problem being, of course, that you don't find so many Cinncinnatus types as this kind of andication of power requires, and almost invariably those who gain power sek to maintain it, or something like it. As such, in China, the USSR ( and satellites), and Cuba, what was called Communism over the years was really only another power structure which used some socialistic ideas and practices, on some levles, but whose overall delineation of power was a far cry from actual communism. Their slogan were communist, but so what? They weren't. The same could b said fro Marcos, Pinochet, etc., who were nominally democratic. The exact same thing would have happened to our democracy had Washington, for all his failings, not incredibly been a Cinncinnatus in this regard. Otherwise, like the 'Communist' movements of the past century, democracy in America would have been strangled in the craddle, and transformed into just another power structure preaching popularist rhetoric. Short of someone willing to do what it takes to take power, including make war, but then be willing to give i up, any revolutionary movement is doomed to abort itself, and never become what it wanted to. There are precious few of those kinds of individuals around. Napoleon, in all other respects vastly superior to Washington, fell victim to the pragmatic appeal of absolute power, although it can be argued that he was perpetually having to defend the gains of the Revolution, and never had the ability to put the mantle down in peace that Washington did. But again, the state which we called Communist was, in fact, not. It was a semi-socialist, semi oligarchial state which preached Communist diatribe. To judge communism by those efforts is as unfiar as judging Democracy by the standards of the Weimar Republic.
re: free markets work.. The United States was 11th, held back in part by its underdeveloped mobile phone system, said Michael Minges, author of the report. The U.S. government also has done little to encourage competition among service providers, so prices remain relatively high compared with Asia, where government-encouraged competition is strong, he added. http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/7302154.htm
