This argument also counts for developed countries in a lot of cases as well:

Power is a commodity. This makes the cheapest provider of it the winner. Current technologies are such that coal is still (often by far) the cheapest source of power. In addition it is one of the few base-load options out there (others being biofuel, nuclear, hydoelectric). With these two features of coal, wind is often times too expensive an option for a country such as India and with an aging grid, the power fluctuations from other sources like wind and solar will often overwhelm the infrastructure.

Technology adoption is rarely the only barrier to a solution. Cost plays a major role and when you're subsistence-living you don't give a shit about whether coal will pollute your environment because you're more worried about where your next meal will come from.

Some will also argue that local power like wind requires less infrastructure. This isn't entirely true. You still need to run the wires from the local power station to the residences. You can save on long-distance transmission lines but considering you need those anyways for the base-load... that's a bit of a non argument.

In general, solar, wind etc are first world solutions where we have the option of paying a bit more to make up for the difference in costs involved in producing the cleaner and more local power and even then... these projects have a pretty high fail rate (Solar fields in Spain, Wind farms in Hawai'i).

Drivers behind spending under presidents and congresses

Taxation and spending clause

Dems not to blame

Check this out: Government spending by president. This shows that while Obama may have been spending a lot during a recession, something that many economists encourage to balance out the "good years", the real culprits of out of control government spending are Reagan, Bush and Bush.

Reagan can also be somewhat forgiven due to the economic problems in the 80s and encouraging government spending to make up for the loss in business generated GDP, however he was there for 8 years... and that recession did not last 8 years.

Just looking at the fiscal realities, Clinton was by far the best president if it weren't for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act which set the stage for "too big to fail" banks. Still from a spending standpoint he's by far the best.

Obama is overspending driven by rampant bankster cronyism stemming originally from the Bush era and into the Obama years. This started with TARP (Bush) and continued into QEII, III, and further. There's a good argument to be made that much of the current spending is momentum spending from the second Bush term.

Ultimately we have to look beyond the last 3.5 years and really examine longer term track records before we conclude that the Dems overspend or the Repubs drive up debt.

It does depend on your perspective. It still gives me the willies. But you take the bad with the good.

I'm not too worried about this. Statistics can always be used to extrapolate changes of things happening. Knowing what will happen doesn't mean you can control it and then knowing that someone can predict it will alter the outcomes anyways (think minority report). So overall as long as the predictions are made public and doesn't get classified we'll be fine.

Hopefully these techniques get spread around the world so that the classifying the information won't work.

It is different in different countries. Here in Holland when you live/move to a city you are required by law to register with that city (else not be able to get health insurance, vote, or get social assistance). When you're registered they also automatically send you your voter card before elections. Then its up to you if you go to vote or not. Next elections here are September 12th.

That would be "Hauptgrammatikführer". Führer alternatively spelled Fuehrer in both English and German when the umlaut is not available.

Sincerely,
Oberhauptgrammatikführer

Better yet, make it required with penalty of fine if you don't. If you have no opinion you vote blank. That way you get a more moderate and rational reflection of actual citizen opinion instead of just the extreme ends who are emotionally vested in the issues

That's what you get for being a US citizen.

If you refused to business with the bad guys, you would never do business.

The problem with being a low-price player is you have to always have the lowest price. Yes, most more expensive shops will go out of business. Yes you'll end up with a monopoly or duopoly situation, however when those retailers abuse their power and raise prices, a small shop will pop up to fill the price gap again. The playing field will remain level if you have enforcement and legislation to prevent the larger party from abusing its supply chain position. This is how apple retains its dominance over new technologies like the retina display - they buy up all manufacturing capacity for a year or two so nobody else can have it. Walmart consistently does this and nearly bankrupts its suppliers too - read about Vlassic Pickle's near bankruptcy. Prevent the supply chain abuses and retailers will need to remain sharp and low-priced offering the consumers the best value for money. Then you'll have the service-survivors. The players in the market who do not try to differentiate on price. Think of the small boutique electronics shop who will come to you home and get you the right system for the acoustics of your room. Or the small coffee shop where the owner knows your name and your order when you walk in. There you pay more for the additional service. Everyone in the middle... offering sorta good prices and half-assed service will rightfully be pushed out of the market. Differentiate or die... just because someone's been there for 50 years doesn't mean they have a right to be there for 51.

Persian?

I would posit that the most successful CEO in history was J.D. Rockefeller, of Standard Oil. The company that gave birth to the Seven Sisters after being broken up (BP, Gulf Oil, Standard Oil of California, Chevron, Shell, Esso, Standard Oil of New York). Oh yeah, and SOCal had a very large stake in setting up Saudi Aramco. He saw the importance of oil and pretty much monopolized it.

I don't know where you live, but I live in a big city. No garden to be had, nor roof top available to anyone except the penthouse.

As part of the EU, where the largest budget item is farm subsidies Austria is just as bad as anywhere else. However, I agree that the way farming goes on out here (I'm in NL) is far more responsible that the megacorps in the US despite crazy rules on how bent a cucumber needs to be to end up in the stores