Ok. Let's wait until 2013 - I'm pretty sure Germany is going to become reliant on imports again. Especially on imports of baseline power.

Duh. They're turned off nuclear power plants in August/September, so they are net exporter because nuclear power plants worked through most of the year.

Uhm. I hate to say, but you know nothing about power transmission. First, it matters very much where consumer and producer are located if power is transmitted over AC power lines simply because transit countries have to apply phase corrections to keep phases in sync. And phase shifters very much care about distances between producer and consumer. Then there's N+1 redundancy requirement and synchronization issues.

Nope. This year Germany is going to be a net importer (albeit not a large importer). Interconnectedness does not matter per se, no electricity from Germany is used in East Siberia and vice versa. Simply because of huge transmission losses. It's rare for electric power to be used more than a thousand kilometers from its source. And notion of transit countries is very much real and Germany is one of them. Or do you think that current simply goes through the air?

Yup. Germany has switched from energy exporter to weak energy importer with the shutdown of nuclear powerplants which your data omits. 2012 will be the first year with net imports.

Here's a link to a relevant chart: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiemarkt#Entwicklung_der_Stromhandelsbilanz - notice how the power balance fell in 2011.

But don't worry! Greenpeace has a plan for it - build more dirty coal powerplants: http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110713-36277.html

Germany is NOT a net exporter. However, it's one of the main Central European electricity transit countries.

Molten salt storage is not a 'technology', but more of 'extract money from government' thing. It can't scale enough even in theory and it's horribly expensive and inefficient to boot.

By a ROCKET! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_mail#United_States_Postal_Service Oh, and fully armed nuclear warheads would of course be merely a courtesy detail.

On the contrary, I have a very good memory.

WRONG!
UK debt end 1998 : 410,2 G£, i. e. 46,7 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 1999 : 405,7 G£, i. e. 43,7 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2000 : 400,6 G£, i. e. 41,0 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2001 : 385,5 G£, i. e. 37,7 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2002 : 402,9 G£, i. e. 37,5 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2003 : 441,1 G£, i. e. 38,7 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2004 : 487,9 G£, i. e. 40,4 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2005 : 529,4 G£, i. e. 42,3 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2006 : 573,3 G£, i. e. 43,4 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2007 : 618,4 G£, i. e. 44,2 % of GDP (ONS)
UK debt end 2008 : 750,3 G£, i. e. 52,0 % of GDP (ONS)
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1950_2010UKp_11s1li011lcn_G0t_UK_National_Debt_As_Pct_GDP

So where's the debt crisis? It oscillated around 40% during the recent "good" years. It only started growing in 2008 because of the freaking global crisis. There was NO reason for austerity. And the effects of austerity turned out to be self-defeating - the projections show that their effects on deficit are minimal.

Everyone preaching about debt should read http://www.amazon.com/End-This-Depression-Paul-Krugman/dp/0393088774 . Go on, read it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10810962 - it was futile and unable to reduce deficits, of course. But spending cuts were very real.

Not 'will' but 'has'. The UK is in the midst of the SECOND recession and falling down still. Cameron achieved quite a dubious feat - UK has now been depressed more than in the Great Depression of 30-s. With no way out in sight.

That'd be true if Cameron at the same time tried to actually do something with the economy, instead of trying to squeeze it as much as possible with new austerity measures. The ones that have already caused a new recession in the UK.

I pay $10 for unlimited symmetric 100Mb with real static IP address. Poor Americans.

Wrong. Most small companies DO NOT get initial capital from 'investment'. They get it either in the form of bank loans (which are not considered income) or by personal savings. Now, bank loans are backed by deposits can be considered investments. And maybe simple bank deposits should be exempt from taxes. But that's it. Speculation on stock market (even HFT) right now is considered 'investment' which it isn't.

Only it doesn't work this way in practice. Investment for the sake of investment has become an industry. Which produces less and less tangible benefits. Just look at the likes of Bain Capital.

If you did this 100-200 years ago then yes, it would be an internal matter. Otherwise Britain would still consider the US _its_ internal matter.