The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 14 Aug 2007 13:16 James Arthur wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > James Arthur wrote: > > > John Larkin wrote: > > > > > > Europe looks good, until you consider their demographic time bomb: > > > > declining number of workers, increasing retirees, and unfunded > > > > retirement comittments: > > > > > >http://www.iht.com/articles/1996/01/27/oc.t.php > > > > > I personally think that forcing young people to pay for other people's > > > parents' retirements is immoral. > > > > Even now in many counties, parents have lots of kids to ensure they get taken > > care of when they're old. Is that immoral ? > > > Certainly not. I think it's wonderful for kids to take care of their > parents in old age, but note that this obligation is taken on > willingly, out of love for one's parents. Are you suggesting all kids love their parents ? And if some didn't, would it be fait that their parents suffered as a result ? > Compelling kids working today to pay for my retirement, by contrast, > is another matter. It boils down to the same thing. Graham
From: James Arthur on 14 Aug 2007 13:29 On Aug 14, 9:16 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > James Arthur wrote: > > Eeyore wrote: > > > James Arthur wrote: > > > > John Larkin wrote: > > > > > > Europe looks good, until you consider their demographic time bomb: > > > > > declining number of workers, increasing retirees, and unfunded > > > > > retirement comittments: > > > > > >http://www.iht.com/articles/1996/01/27/oc.t.php > > > > > I personally think that forcing young people to pay for other people's > > > > parents' retirements is immoral. > > > > Even now in many counties, parents have lots of kids to ensure they get taken > > > care of when they're old. Is that immoral ? > > > Certainly not. I think it's wonderful for kids to take care of their > > parents in old age, but note that this obligation is taken on > > willingly, out of love for one's parents. > > Are you suggesting all kids love their parents ? No. > And if some didn't, would it be fair that their parents suffered as a result ? Yes!! That's feedback--incentive for parents to raise good kids! Besides, it's a false question--parents should save enough for their own futures. That was the norm here a few decades ago, but now the majority, banking blindly on Social Security, feel free to waste their $$ on nonsense. They trust their retirements to the government, even though they don't understand it. It's an act of faith. The fallacy being that Social Security isn't a bank and there isn't anything in it: it's a pay-as-you-go program. > > Compelling kids working today to pay for my retirement, by contrast, > > is another matter. > > It boils down to the same thing. > > Graham I don't see how, but I am mulling John's point--that it's repayment for education & other benefits reaped. Cheers, James Arthur ------------- "Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone." -- Bastiat
From: John Larkin on 14 Aug 2007 14:22 On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:14:48 -0700, "Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:9an3c3tr9ehtofhr9jfn3l0da77dh1o25p(a)4ax.com... >> When I was a kid in New Orleans, we had to eat shrimp because meat was >> too expensive. > >Hmm... and here I would have thought that shrimp would actually be more >expensive than, e.g., chicken. Fresh shrimp could be bought for 19 cents a pound, off pickup trucks parked along the side of the road. That was before they refrigerated them and loaded them onto 747 freighters bound for New York. My wife grew up along the coast of Massachusetts, where they had to eat lobster when funds were short. > >Not that I'm going to switch to be a vegetarian any time soon, but raising >chickens does make it quite obvious just how much more energy it takes to put >meat on the table rather than vegetables! > >Compared to, e.g., 50 years ago, I suspect that food is now a much lower >percentage of peoples' incomes, whereas housing is *much* higher. Cars are >also higher, whereas stuff like TVs and stereos is much less. Yes, food is absurdly cheap in the USA. A hour's work at minimum wage will buy 30+ pounds of potatoes, or five cheeseburgers. John
From: James Arthur on 14 Aug 2007 14:50 On Aug 14, 8:49 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:45:01 -0700, James Arthur wrote: > >P.S. OTOH, I spent today designing a switcher ... and I did double its > >output just because I could (and it was useful) ... so, I guess I must > >have some power lust, but not limitless--that could cause a fire. > > >For now I'm happy with 1/2 kW, and it's strictly limited. --ja > > Topology? I'd love to say--it's fun--but alas, cannot. Regretfully, James Arthur
From: Michael A. Terrell on 14 Aug 2007 15:43
John Larkin wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:41:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > >James Arthur wrote: > >> > >> I do notice that people in general have two and three of things we > >> could barely afford one of 20 years ago (TVs, cars, music systems), > >> are eating out, and see no evidence of bread lines, or people eating > >> less meat because it's too dear (as we once did). > > > > > > Then you haven't been around any reasonably sized city. There are > >food pantries, soup kitchen. and other non profit groups to help the > >homeless, and others get enough food to stay alive. Most of these are > >run by churches in that area. I know of at least three church run food > >charities in my town, alone. There is another group called "Share" that > >buys the basics in bulk, and if you are a member and in decent health, > >you have to volunteer at their warehouse to break down the skids of food > >into individual packages. Another group, "Veterans and family services" > >is a non profit that helps Veterans and their families when they fall > >through the cracks, and can't get help from the VA. I support that > >group, being a disabled Veteran, myself. > > For every truly needy person, there are roughly four lazy bums who > take advantage of the situation, not to mention the well-paid captains > of the Poverty Industry. > > When they have food giveaways in Oakland, leather and fur-clad people > pull up in BMWs to get their free blocks of cheese. > > Most of the "homeless" here are youngish white males. I've never seen > a Chinese panhandler in a town that's 30% Chinese. The groups around here make sure of the need. They have to see your monthly bills, and your income before you can get help. They also share information to keep people from using more than one food pantry at a time. One of the largest charities is run by the Blessed Trinity Catholic Church. They operate a thrift store called 'Brother's Keeper', and have their food pantry in the same building. I see mostly elderly, and homeless minorities going there when I make my pickups of donated computer hardware. The only reason that they accept the equipment is for my project. One of their volunteers heard about the project, and made the arrangements. Over half of the equipment I get comes from them, or their two schools. My church also requires ID and records to prove need. The Veterans food bank is handled by the local "Vets helping Vets" office, outside the VA's jurisdiction. They gave me some food, and $20 for gasoline while I was waiting for my VA medical card. The day I got my first disability check, I gave the money back. I haven't had any dealings with the 'Share' group, but I have heard that they also check for real need. All of these programs are run by volunteers, except for the manager of the thrift store. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |