hydrogen is much more reactive/combustible than methane. I'd argue that the risks (or costs associated with keeping it safe) would not be worth it.

Whoa whoa not likely, this would require them to actually ramp up production of fossil fuel in the face of lowering demand and increasing price. assuming we are making the assumption that the extraction equipment is powered by oil. it might take more oil to get at the oil in the ground, but the worldwide rate of oil production/consumption will not increase!

Well you could rebuild the dam the next day, but it would still take several years to complete the job and Las Vegas would be basically empty until that was done.

I would also argue that the only nuclear accident that has ever impacted someone who just happened to be in the vicinity was Chernobyl, which was a reactor that had no containment. There isn't a reactor in operation today that could just irradiate everyone around it instantaneously. There will be a warning and time for evacuation. I don't personally believe fukushima will lead to a measurable increase of cancer rate in those who left the evacuation zone, but we will only have a clue about that in perhaps 10-20 years.

You could build small hydroelectric dams that wouldn't flood anyone out, but I doubt you could build one to match the power generation of a nuclear reactor that wouldn't carry that risk. People often live next to rivers.

Meanwhile in the U.S. the EPA must be abolished if we want jobs again. Maybe so if we want more oncologists.

What's the point of being able to 'go there' if the damage has been done. That whole region is artificially modified to support mass habitation, and if the Dam fails it is no different than if the cooling processes in a nuclear reactor fail. Mass evacuation, some death, and a region that will not be particularly useful to us for a long time. The numbers are a case by case basis depending on which nuclear reactor fails, but I think you'd have a hard time matching the numbers generated by a failure of Hoover dam as laid out by the article you referenced.

The hoover dam is one sturdy piece of construction, but failures of hydroelectric dams are relatively common. Many of them kill directly and one has killed several million in a single sweep. It is just as reasonable to say we cannot engineer hydroelectric dams to the necessary level of safety either.

The study wasn't even peer-reviewed and was done for an organization who's stated goal was eliminating the risks of nuclear power. The NY Times ran an article referencing the same study, and then had to append a revision because of how biased it was.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/global/27iht-renuke.html?_r=3

Supply of college degrees has been artificially increased in a sort of self-replicating process. The government triggered it by deciding that all people need to have access to college if they choose, and they instituted a combination of policies (Pell grant, subsidized loans, etc.) to make this happen. Well a lot of extra people did indeed go get that degree to get higher wages, and employers found that they could more easily demand a college degree from applicants. And also this degree would not entail paying them as much as it used to, because the degree is not as rare as it used to be. As more employers demanded degrees, more people had to go to school to get a degree. Here is where the key thing happens. These people have been ABLE to get the degree because they have a guaranteed student loan from the government, and so even more college degrees flood the market and the cycle repeats.

If it had been a private student loan system, and that private system was working responsibly, then they would have drastically slowed down providing student loans a long time ago, and the college degree numbers would have corrected. If a private loan system was not working responsibly then you get basically the same effect as the housing bubble.

I'm sure they would only be using the technology to potentially save lives and 'provide information on an adversary's plans'.

The companies were only able to demand everyone have a 4 year degree because the government was providing loans for a degree to anyone who asked. A responsibly run private system would have drastically slowed down providing loans a long time ago. Key word: responsible. hah! In all reality a private student loan system would lead to a bubble and crash just like with housing. Also, we might be headed for that anyway.

I'm not sure, but possibly true in this case since the subsidy is being given to the consumer instead of the producer. Normally a subsidy would decrease the price of a product

However, I don't think this economics 101 description is sufficient to describe what is really happening. Supply of college degrees has been artificially increased in a sort of self-replicating process. The government triggered it by deciding that all people need to have access to college if they choose, and they instituted a combination of policies (Pell grant, subsidized loans, etc.) to make this happen. Well a lot of extra people did indeed go get that degree to get higher wages, and employers found that they could more easily demand a college degree from applicants. And also this degree would not entail paying them as much as it used to, because the degree is not as rare as it used to be. As more employers demanded degrees, more people had to go to school to get a degree. Here is where the key thing happens. These people have been ABLE to get the degree because they have a guaranteed student loan from the government, and so even more college degrees flood the market and the cycle repeats.

If it had been a private student loan system, and that private system was working responsibly, then they would have drastically slowed down providing student loans a long time ago, and the college degree numbers would have corrected. If a private loan system was not working responsibly then you get basically the same effect as the housing bubble.

The subsidized government loans artificially lowers the cost of college, which has the effect of increasing BOTH supply and demand for college degrees. Trading out subsidized loans for private loans will put the cost of college back at its economically real price and decreasing number of students and demand for degrees.

However, I don't think this economics 101 description is sufficient to describe what is really happening. Supply of college degrees has been artificially increased in a sort of self-replicating process. The government triggered it by deciding that all people need to have access to college if they choose, and they instituted a combination of policies (Pell grant, subsidized loans, etc.) to make this happen. Well a lot of extra people did indeed go get that degree to get higher wages, and employers found that they could more easily demand a college degree from applicants. And also this degree would not entail paying them as much as it used to, because the degree is not as rare as it used to be. As more employers demanded degrees, more people had to go to school to get a degree. Here is where the key thing happens. These people have been ABLE to get the degree because they have a guaranteed student loan from the government, and so even more college degrees flood the market and the cycle repeats.

If it had been a private student loan system, and that private system was working responsibly, then they would have drastically slowed down providing student loans a long time ago, and the college degree numbers would have corrected. If a private loan system was not working responsibly then you get basically the same effect as the housing bubble.

Germans employ more part-time workers than basically any other country. This causes the raw statistics of average hours per week and total unemployment to become distorted. In order to do that they actually subsidize part-time employment, so they do in fact pay for the increased inefficiency through higher taxes. All of this works for them because they are strong in other ways. Like you mentioned I was incorrect to say they have open economic policies internationally. Regardless, that's not what we're arguing about here, it's enough to say we both agree the Germans are doing well.

I realize the topic of this story was unions, but I'm not really talking about them. Unions are both good and bad. We've used laws to distort the operations and purposes of unions in the name of consumer protection. But as a tool for creating an actual middle class they served their purpose well.

You seem to be making all of this about wealth and who deserves a high quality of life, and I haven't said one word about that. My only point is that some people are more capable at things like designing robotics or delivering mass information than others. And if the trend continues, then there will be a few people providing the 'needs' for everyone else. The rest of the people might be living on handouts and doing nothing, they might be making music and teaching martial arts, and some of them might very well have a lot of money doing such things.

Greece is the country which has exhibited your suggestions the most completely, and you see the results there. Germans barely work less than we do, and their economy is so strong because they do business openly on international markets.

I'm a pharmacist (not a systems analyst, no idea where you got that), and as such I know full well the challenges of proving worth in the economy of scale. I certainly don't assume that I will be in the 1% of producers or whatever the number is. Remember that I'm predicting the future, not trying to analyze where we are at now. And the fact is everything from farming to teaching is becoming more automated, and in many fields 1 person can carry the work of 100. But that 1 person should be the best person, and he should be doing all the work if you want to be as efficient as possible. Humanity will strain against over population in the future, and the highest level of efficiency will be demanded in order to push that conflict further away.

Some people don't want to work less hours you know, but by the tone of your arguments I wouldn't expect you to be one of them.

We have shortage of workers in many of the engineering and skilled professions. I think the reason is that the path towards greater automation requires fewer but more skilled workers, and we are getting to a point where the average person just can't do it no matter how much his education is subsidized.

At the terminus of this trend we will have a few people supporting the life sustaining needs of the masses. But for now, few consider receiving a handout and doing nothing a high quality of life. So we have a lot of make work.

I would say that because of the easy availability of student loans, demand has been artificially increased. That doesn't explain why real tuition cost is still rising, but I think traditional supply and demand economics just isn't robust enough to explain the education industry because of the amount of cultural influence and government interference.