There is a Moore's law if one recognizes it is just a statement of exponential growth. Solar grows exponentially cheaper with more production. It is already one of the cheapest forms of electricity and it will become the cheapest, easily, and soon.

Tesla Powerwall will sell at $350 per kWh, which is right in the ballpark of where people have figured tesla and leaf batteries are being sold at...

I am curious about this claim and the numbers attached to it compared to prior corporate handouts by the federal government. There have been some very big ones. Can you fill me in?

it was very profitable to use money to influence congress 200 years ago and 100 years ago and 50 years ago and today. Maybe you can explain to me what I'm missing "throughout US history."

All the that money and the open corruption in the 1800s, despite the more limited government, does what to your anti-big government theory?

Sorry to inform you that money in politics had higher ROI than R&D or quality employees 200 years ago too.

I know enough about everyone, certainly anyone engaging in mid-day web browsing on a technology forum, and I'm not excepting myself, to identify obvious and delusional hypocrisy or double standards. Have a terrific weekend!

used phones are better, used samsungs are best: cheap, parts, repair documentation, ubiquitous, 5000 to 9000 mAh batteries, mostly root/rom-able.

Did you actually put thought into that statement or did it fall out of your mouth?

.50 caliber rounds will penetrate an inch of steel + sand + human flesh? From wikipedia:

Not quite, but still mighty impressive.

lol you are such a moron. of all the things to complain about, you chose this one? of all the expenses that would go into a basic income scheme, you complain about internet? the moment you give up all the subsidized garbage you consume is the moment anyone will consider taking your stupid useless opinion seriously.

I am confused

why thank you for the elegant reply. I see no real argument here, I guess. But I am unaware of any controversy surrounding the thesis that surplus labor from industrialization drove migration and resettlement. The emerging class of capitalists crushed labor moves in this era. Wages were low, Chinese, ex-slaves, veterans, the Irish were all played off one another to drive down wages. Wages went down, poverty increased, working conditions deteriorated, breadlines grew, How do you come by these observations without surplus labor?

I think its clear that my comments were solely focused on the EU/US and that conversations in general on this website are US-centric. And the basis of this thread implies the progress of capitalist systems; hence essentially confining the history to the times and places I have considered. Where the during this previous period was subject to similar labor pressures as those that will occur if robotics and software create a large excess of labor. One of the major features for the US and EU during that time is that cheap settlement was a partial relief to 10s of millions of immigrants and migrants who would have otherwise exacerbated the surplus labor caused by industrialization during the era. That land filled up, just as you contend occurred previously in history, hence my support of the GP's statement. Now apparently, you've taken to argue with me because I haven't considered the Roman army, who apparently were able to give out 20acre/man to hundreds of thousands of soldiers because land was expensive and unavailable.

Indentured servitude was largely a practice of colonial times (pre-US); slavery was greatly preferred by 1800. Some people, particularly, immigrants still entered into similar contracts abroad to cover the cost of their migration. I think his point stands. Prior to the 20th century land was cheap or often free. Homestead acts secured this, but the federal government effectively recognized squatters for decades before then. No land? Go further west. One could effectively stake out of claim for free (subject to first bidding rights, when the time came, if ever) and support oneself (farm,mine,hunt) up through the late 19th century. And 10s of millions of people did that and it was the only relief valve on labor during gilded age. Without that respite the gilded age would have been even worse for the lower classes due to the sudden and large surplus of labor caused by industrialization. In contrast there is no relief should we enter to major labor surplus today. We see evidence of this already.

Using an aggressive setback on a programmable thermosat can save substantially a bit. A $200 programmable thermostat is a more costly than usual; thats typically the price point for a learning thermostat (which attempt to be programmable thermostats for lazy people, but aren't as good).

For example I set back from 68 to 50 during the night when I sleep and during the day when I am working. For "average" outdoor temperature of lets say 30F, I slashed heating bill by 48% durring that setback. Since I am working and sleeping 75% of the day. Total savings are 36%. Utilities are cheap here, I pay ~$700 to heat and cool my place. So I don't save much (though, incidentally, enough to pay off a very cheap programmable thermostat in less than a heating season) Some people are spending $3000-$4000 to heat and cool moderately sized houses. Few weeks = 3 to 5 * 3000/52 = $173 to $288 in heating costs. Slashing that by 30% gives you at least $18-24/week savings.

And this guy could easily have an extra ordinary situation such that he is measuring payback in weeks instead of months. e.g., in a heating climate he could have an St. Paul 1890 5900 sq ft house with an oil boiler from the same era, or in cooling climate Yuma AZ, a 1994 AC with uninstalled duct work running through the 160F attic. Yeah, in both situations they could substantially and cost effectively reduce operational costs using other methods, but this is the type of crap that permeates american construction.