The article puts the lie to the idea that these H-1B workers are filling jobs that there are no good American candidates for. The article, and one linked in it, talk about existing workers training their H-1B replacements. So, there are manifestly American workers who can do these jobs. They are doing them right now! The article also says they are often older workers being replaced. You know what that means; these older workers are highly compensated. As usual it's about the bottom line, with humans as resources to be exploited.

We have the world's largest prison population. How could we not be the land of the free?

But why was Mosaddegh overthrown?

Near me there is a gas station that charges fully 10 cents less per gallon if the buyer uses cash. Their credit card price is competitive with other stations in the area. So it shows just how much the consumer ends up paying for using credit cards.

Credit also pushes up prices in general, since you can buy higher priced items if you can pay them off over time. If people had to actually save up the cash to make large purchases it would delay the purchases and put downward pressure on prices.

At base, all I'm saying is that the US government can create enough money to get it done. The companies or industries affected would not have to worry about the cost if the government were to fill the gap. They had plenty of money to bail out Wall Street, but don't seem to have the same will when it comes to dealing with climate change. Maybe it's the imminence of the threat, as you say.

As a larger point, I'm glad we are discussing money as a means of control. Most people don't understand it as such, but that's what it is. Our monetary system is a debt-fueled societal control mechanism. The question of course is who is doing the controlling and to what end. Since money is central to all this (and everything else) I would like to see it used more for the public good, and less for private gain. That's why I said we need a new paradigm; one that emphasizes the public good, not profit. Because the need for profit is preventing us from doing what is necessary.

You can call me a socialist utopian, and you'd probably be right. I'm not saying that my idea of how things should be has any chance of coming about. But I do think it's necessary for our survival. Focusing on private gain and immediate self-interest, which is the incentive in our economic system, is inadequate to tackling such a large and inter-dependent problem as climate change. It is not set up for concerted action. But we will cling to it because of powerful interests and a lack of imagination. We are circling the drain, and it is of our own choosing.

10 years ago, I knew the system was fucked. But it's nice that the general consensus is coming around to agree with me, more or less. It reminds me of when everyone else finally realized what a terrible president Gorge W. Bush was, or that the NSA really is spying on them.

The problems go deeper than you probably know; deep enough that you would again consider me a crank if I told you. The fraud and regulatory capture are only the beginning. Where it gets really interesting is where the corporate and financial bigwigs get together with the intelligence agencies and start spying and manipulating. They are driving world events with deception and propaganda, and doing things most would consider to be impossible.

I would think saving the planet would be motivation enough. But if nothing else, I think the US government should fund and subsidize the shift to a new energy infrastructure, through research grants, tax incentives, etc. It's clear that the need for profit is holding us back from making the changes we need to make. So take the profit out of the equation.

In a larger scope, it is interesting to me that profit is the only way we can think of to motivate people. It's as if we weren't creative beings at heart. Absent the profit motive, I think people would create and build things out of necessity, creativity, or a desire to make life better for oneself and others. Profit is actually a poor motivator because a well-done job or quality product is only a by product of a desire for profit. If a profit can be made with shoddy work or an inferior product, that's just as well; because the motivation is profit, not doing a good job.

The US government has shown that it will come up with large amounts of money when properly motivated. We need a Manhattan Project for climate change, since the private sector has shown itself incapable of the task. Government is more free to act precisely because it doesn't have to make a profit. It is not constrained in that way. It can, and does, print as much money as it needs.

Ah, so we should put all the people with the most money in a room, lock the door, and let them do whatever is in their best interest. Isn't that how free, democratic societies make policy these days? ;-)

A reduced labor force wouldn't be an issue. Judging from the current unemployment rate, and the myriad crap the economy pumps out that no one needs, it seems we don't need nearly as large a labor force as we have now.

The article keeps talking about cost. The energy has to be lower cost, companies won't switch if it costs them profit, coal is still lower cost, etc. The problem seems to be our economic system, not our technology level. We'd love to save the planet, but it will cut into profits, so we can't.

How crazy is this? The future of our civilization is at risk, but our economic system won't let us address the issue. It's as if Capitalism is more important than the civilization it supposedly serves. It is not even questioned that saving the planet has to make a profit. Oh, it will cost money? Well then, sorry, can't do it because everything done in America has to be profitable. It's like Capitalism is a suicide cult or something.

Since 2008 the Federal Reserve has tripled the money supply to save the oligarchs, I mean the economy. Would they print that much to save the planet? I mean, if it's really just a matter of money, the US can create all the money it needs. They pulled $700 billion out of their ass to bail out the banksters, I mean the economy. Why not bail out the planet? The fact is, neither technology nor markets will save us. They may be the tools we use, but what we need is a new attitude and perspective; one that's not a slave to money and profit. We could do all kinds of things if we weren't hamstrung by needing to make a profit. But it seems instead we'll just go over the cliff with our favorite ideology intact. Amazing.

Social engineering is going on all the time. A majority supported the Iraq war, after all. It's just a matter of what you're engineering.

We all know how this works; you tell the people they are under threat and identify your solution as the only way to save mankind. As someone told us a while back, the people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders. If the government put the word out, the media would get behind it. That's their job these days, after all. If the right person made a call to Roger Ailes, you could even get the Fox News ditto heads to support it.

What evidence could there be against a ham sandwich? I don't think you understand the meaning of that phrase. It means the prosecutor can get an indictment for just about anything. If they want someone indicted, they get them indicted. It implies that the prosecutor did not want an indictment in this case.