You know what alternative medicine that works is called?

Medicine.

If it is alternative, then it isn't medicine.

And why do I (and others) prefer the $9.99 service and the $179 gadget? Perhaps because I know it sucks as much as the higher priced one?

There is often a reason to pay more and I often do. But many times there is no apparent reason to do so.

Well, your example may not have been legal behavior either.

However, there is a very large distinction between cars being searched at a gate on the road outside the facility where you work and your personal bag being searched at your place of work. These distinctions matter.

How is the statement wrong?

Politicians want to get elected and stay in office. To do that they need votes. They go through a great deal of trouble to encourage some people to vote for them, others not to vote, and to prevent some from voting at all. Each candidate and party does this in different proportions.

If you aren't going to vote for them or for an opponent, why should they care about you or your opinions? Hell, one goal of some candidates and political parties is to get people like you not to vote at all.

Yeah, I don't have much respect for people who don't vote. If you don't like the choices, write a better one in. If enough people did this, it would be noticed and it would make a difference. Because at the present time, not voting is also choosing the status quo.

Or you create a lot of mini-Hanfords. Yes, that's hyperbolic but I wish people wouldn't say that reprocessing or something similar is the answer. There's a reason we don't do it. One reason is the cost. But it also produces more waste. Hopefully not as radioactive, but there is more waste.

And those new reactor designs? Still unproven. Why will they work better that the current versions? Note, I'm not asking why they should, I'm asking why they will.

There's a reason that nuclear plants are being phased out. Coal may be dirty, may be be more radioactive, but when something goes wrong you don't evacuate the region. It's all about risk.

You do realize that there are these things called roofs. They are everywhere. They are great places for solar installations.

I think Germany has also proved that you can generate a massive amount of energy from solar. Why waste the time with nuclear. If you want jobs, start with solar.

The real reason we are building NG and coal plants? They are much easier and cheaper to build than nuclear plants. They can be build smaller. They can be built quicker. People don't object if they have problems. These things aren't because of NIMBY or BANANA. It's primarily technical.

I've seen people kill power plants that weren't nuclear (biomass) based on health concerns, so nuclear isn't unique.

Please point to the many breeder reactors that have been successfully operating (meeting the claims established for them) for decades.

If you have difficulty (and you will), that's why it's a hand wave.

Actually it's both technical and political.

For instance, the nuclear waste repository was sited in Nevada for political reasons. It was not a good site otherwise. The best sites were excluded early on for political reasons.

Second, we use the reactors we use because they work and we are familiar with them. At least most of the time. Yes, there are other designs that might work better. In theory. But based on how well the current ones "work", I doubt it.

"It's true that the capital costs of nuclear power are high, but in all fairness a substantial part of those costs and the time required to build are caused by anti-nuclear pressure groups and other NIMBYs who drag the process out for decades in courts and through environmental review boards as a delaying tactic to discourage development by artificially running up the cost."

Citation needed.

For instance, please explain how the failure of WPPSS in the late 70's and early 80's was the result of this versus economic, technical, and competency factors. Ratepayers in the PNW are still paying for nuclear power they are not receiving to this day.

Then please explain how the new designs will escape this fate. After all, since there must be places which don't have this problem, these new designs must be operating successfully in large numbers. Where are these places?

In any case, it will still take decades for them to come on line in significant numbers at BEST (based on production estimates). And they would be replacing existing generating capacity in practice. They are not a useful solution when you can put solar on a roof of a structure within a few months.

Sure, it's not base load, but maybe we should be looking at a solution for that? We have decades, after all...

So banks knowingly made bad loans and it was the regulations fault? Regulations that were loosened over time, which is what I assume you meant by incentives.

Sorry but that is a failure of logic.

Then why did my local district have to make a choice between losing six teachers and fixing a roof on a school? That was improperly installed by a bankrupt contractor.

They chose the roof. After all, what's a few more students in each class....

To a point, money does matter, especially in high poverty schools.

Actually, based on PISA scores, we are one of the top countries in the world. Many countries come here to learn about our education system. You just never hear about it. Why? Because they never adjust for relative poverty levels when reporting. The "reformers" want a crisis.

We are trying to use our schools to fix the effects of poverty. I think you can figure out how well that has been going. Of course, considering our willingness to fix inequality, we don't seem to have a choice.

It's easy to fire teachers. Even those with "tenure", more accurately called due process. Plenty of districts do it. Districts that have poor teachers by definition have poor administrators. And since administrators are really easy to fire, if you think you have poor teachers, I suggest you take it up with your school board.

"A job is not a job is not a job, it's not true that government can spend into prosperity, it's not true that government jobs add to prosperity and to economy, it's not true that spending is what grows the economy."

There was a boom in the economy due to WW1, then a recession after WW1, at least in certain regions. According to your statement, this is did not happen. Please explain how government spending did not increase jobs and add to prosperity.

WW2 ended the great depression in the US. According to your statement, this did not happen. Please explain how government spending did not increase jobs and add to prosperity.

"In fact AFAIC there is no difference between a welfare recipient and a government worker. Just because the government worker has a job to go to, it doesn't change the fact that his job is being paid from the productivity stolen from people who ACTUALLY produce the wealth that ends up as salaries."

As to the difference between a government and a private job, there is none. Paying $X to the government for a service via taxes is no different that paying $X dollars to a private company for a service.

" (* see my sig, I explain about the fact that the personal income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally in USA *)."

Seriously? Are you a POE? If you really believe this then I suggest refusing to pay your taxes and notify the IRS of this fact.

"Cutting tax rates without cutting spending does not equal cutting taxes, and that is exactly why the jobs are leaving,"

Actually, according to economists who actually study these things, cutting tax rates are causing the jobs to leave. If you increase effective tax rates on the wealthy, more jobs will be created with less offshoring. Right now it is cheap to take money out of companies as profit. The goal is to make it costly to take money out of companies. This drives investment and creates jobs.

Well, luckily for you, the world is a libertarian's paradise. There are hundreds of governmental options, some of which do not tax the output of your labor. Feel free to relocate.

I won't waste time reading your journal as your grasp on basic concepts is lacking. First, government is not a luxury item. Second, the idea that a government will be constrained by a consumption tax is absurd. As long as it can print money and sell debt it can spend. The US, for instance, has been constrained by taxes for a long time. It hasn't stopped spending. And any spending by a government is by definition tax expenditures.