Why do you think that the image and the 'cool-factor' has no value? Maybe that is what people pay for.
If that were not the case, why would they make cars in various colours?

I guess you missed the part where he said we need to invest in carbon capture and pointed out that even if we abandon coal (not likely but let's assume so for the sake of the argument) that the Chinese and Indians won't? Seems to me that if we can make carbon capture work we can sell it to them and get some exports going once again

You're assuming that we Indians would want the carbon capture technology. Al Gore is not a huge box office draw in India.

Yes - you nailed it.
This is the same problem with studies that "show" that high-school/college graduates make more than dropouts. There are plenty of race-discrimination "studies" with the same problem.

I wonder if anyone will catch on to the fact that the new carbon taxes levied are nothing more than a tax on the consumers of energy.

Or maybe they'll find a way to pass on the taxes to only those people who make more than 250,000 - a version of that already exists in India.

Actually it really has.

Depends on whether you want to pay for your own health care or would like others to pay for your health care.

The reason you hear stories about newspapers failing all over the country is because of the Associated Press. In order to cut costs,

You are confusing the cause and effect - if they were doing well, why would they try to cut costs?

Newspapers are dying because there are better ways to advertise and there are better ways to get news. And just like any other industry who cannot justify their business models - RIAA, US steelmakers, etc - they are considering 'legislative remedies'.

mechanical devices, based on physical principles

Here is the invention.

Do you also worry about the trade deficit Oklahoma has with Texas? How about NY and IL? I'm amazed at how otherwise economically literate people misunderstand the trade deficit.

If your country's trade deficit makes you nervous, do this: Instead of saying "America's trade deficit is $X", say "America has an investment surplus of $X" - that'll make you feel better.

Who do you think has been paying for it?

I'm curious, who paid for it? It cannot be the western consumers who get products for a lower cost. It may be the western workers - but only if they didn't retrain and move to other fields (typists, clerks and autoworkers didn't sit around and complain about computers or robots).

So, again, who paid for it? You seem to have a zero-sum view of the world.

What they think about their product is irrelevant! I'm sure the maker of Gigli thought it was the greatest movie ever made!

My point was that, you cannot just say, "Well, the game is not selling, so I'm paying you developers only $5/hour".

1) Pay less to developers and artists
To me, (1) makes most sense. Isn't that how capitalism supposed to work?

Nope. Developers and artists are selling their services - they will sell it to whoever pays more. If the game companies pay less, then they might work for some other industry.

2) Make less expensive games

That is a good idea. Another one is to make a game good enough where it'll sell a lot of copies for a lot of money.

to have one company in control of so many things we depend on

I'm amazed at the mentality of people who think that, just because they depend on/like some product, they get to take away the rights and freedoms of the producers who produce the products.
It is a kind of perverse incentive: I produce a crap product, I'm free to do whatever I want; I produce a great product that millions depend upon, now all my freedoms reg. the product are taken away. And oh, now I'm "too big to fail" so I can put my snout in the public trough whenever I want.

should be too big to fall, it is very anti-capitalism.

In a true capitalist society, no company would be "too _anything_ to fail". If a company fails, their investors, debtors, customers, counterparties, etc would take their losses - just like they'd take their profits.

In your current system, the companies aren't "too big to fail" - they're "too politically connected to fail".

Nobody has laid any lines or upgraded shit around here in years because it might hurt the short term stock price if they actually spent a dime.

To give an example - Fedex and UPS spent hundreds of millions of dollars to place orders for A380s in 2006 (the jet was not even fully designed yet) - just to save money 10-15 years from now. It is nor private business, but politicians who have an incentive to focus on the short term at the expense of the long term - the recent 'stimulus' plan is one illustration of that; the $50 trillion or so of US govt debt is a sadder example.

Uninformed opinions like yours are typically expressed by people who've never run a business in their lives - I'm curious about your business experience.