Sociopaths gonna sociopath.
The problem with nonsense like this is that you completely ignore social dynamics. If I'm going to rob someone, would I rather rob someone who doesn't have a penny to their name or a rich person? If I'm going to scam someone, who's it going to be? You have time, think about it.
Rich people are targets for a fair portion of the general population while poor people aren't. Disengagement is a defensive mechanism against the sociopaths of society, not because somehow being rich is sociopathic.
To not forecast the profit very accurately, is a sign that the business is not in control.
What makes you think they didn't forecast the profit accurately? Public guidance is not forecasting and it is traditional to guide low.
Even when the US was in Iraq (before they got kicked out, before they were subsequently begged to come back when Iraq was being overrun by Daesh...),
I don't buy that the US was kicked out. That was political cover for Obama who apparently felt it was more important to be able to claim zero presence in Iraq in 2012 than to have a stable situation in Iraq in 2014. Even a token US presence would have acted as deterrent, stabilizing influence (the US is a fairly neutral party in the three way political split, for example), and training cadre.
Wind may appear renewable
Renewable doesn't mean that you can pull an infinite amount of wind power from Kansas. It means that you can keep using the resource without using it up. For example, wind is renewable because there's no danger that we can use up all the wind for good. As long as the Sun shines and the Earth has an atmosphere, there will be wind.
What's important is not the source of the measurement (despite what the anti AGW crowd like to claim) but rather the accuracy and repeatability.
So the source of the measurement isn't a strong factor in the accuracy, repeatability, and precision of the measurement? Perhaps we should think about this before making such statements?
Most people don't think these sorts of things happen regularly, but glacial floods [wikipedia.org] have been seen in the earth's history (as long as you believe the earth older than 6000 years).
Those have a completely different mechanism. A glacier blocks off the course of a river and creates a large lake upstream. When overflow melts through or the glacier retreats then you have these glacial floods. They don't come from the glacier itself melting.
So you see the biggest problem is that people live in flood areas, not that the petroleum industry effectively is the most subsidized industry on the planet, and is insulated against the significant costs the use of fossil fuels is producing?
I agree with the grandparent. Most oil subsidies come from countries that produce oil. You're not going to guilt them into changing their ways. The second problem is that a good portion of the oil subsidies subsidize consumption. That means that it's not a subsidy for the industry, which usually takes a loss on the practice.
But people who live in flood zones? We can simply just not pay when their stuff gets wet.
And that is why despite how America is really no different that other societies in having conflicts of interests, Americans end up having to pay more for health care (and many other things).
I must admit to being a bit mystified about why you think there is a connection here between US competitiveness and socialist programs which explicitly short circuit that competitiveness. Is the US also unique for people blaming the system when they intentionally break it?
Is that why Europe was always about a decade ahead of the USA in terms of cell phone tech?
I think it's due to two factors, the usual one of higher population density of Europe and the poorer quality of land lines in large parts of that region encourage adoption of cell phones.
Also, if European cell phone providers are so much better, then they should be able to make inroads in the US market. But the top five are all US providers though two are majority owned by Japanese or German interests.
USA phone bills started increasing drastically some timer after the breakup, when PUCs started allowing local monopolies and mergers in exchange for promises to roll out sorely needed infrastructure upgrades.
Still doesn't fit the narrative of rates quadrupling overnight and it's not a consequence of the AT&T breakup.
If you want to know why your phone service is so bad, don't look at AT&T, look at the corrupt public servants and politicians in your state chambers who took bribes to allow AT&T to regain its monopoly. The USA political system is corrupt from top to bottom and the the problem is FAR worse at state and local levels than federal. Overall you're generally only a couple of steps better than the funnay asian countries you like to poke fun at and only a step further from being like the Philippines (Which is your former colony and its politicians are applying lessons learned under American colonial rule)
So somehow this corruption would be better under an AT&T monopoly? I don't buy it.
You've taken a position on science for entirely political reasons. Childish as fuck.
Pure projection. One of the many anti-scientific games played here is equating carbon dioxide emissions with pollution of the historical sort (more usually done to spin the yarn that the US is the most polluting country on Earth, er, per capita). But you would have to continue to crank out CO2 at current rates for something like a millennium to get similar air quality health consequences to the non-CO2 pollution of current China.
But somehow it's "entirely political" and "childish as fuck" to point out the error in that.
The costs are too high because of greed, which many believe are still good.
Like the people who put $1 into Medicare and expect to get $3 of services out? Or is it only the ebil corporations who can be greedy?
But personally, I don't think it's relevant whether three of your four examples actually did cost too much because of "greed" or some other cause. Someone said that they would cost too much and lo, they did. Maybe when someone says "the costs are too high", they'll be right again because of "greed".
It says a lot about America when the example you agree with - scrubbers- is one that industry fought so hard against and delayed implementing for so very long.
Not at all. Different interests are a fact of every society and culture, and aren't magically unique to the US.
Same excuse was used against smokestack scrubbers, pollution cleanup, healthcare, social security, you name it.
Being right about one (smokestack scrubbers) out of four ain't bad. The obvious rebuttals to your other three (US-centric of course) is that Superfund is a disaster both in terms of cost and abuse of the law which demonstrates that the cost of pollution clean up can indeed be too high. You might have heard that US health care is like 50% higher cost than the runner up. Too high? Youbetcha.
And of course, social security pays more out than it gets. That's a Cost Too High.
I have to wonder when three of your examples really are costs that are too high.
You have lots of rust, contaminated with other stuff. Even primitive smelters were really resource intensive and used LOTS of coal and free oxygen. Hint, what atmosphere mars has doesn't have lots of oxygen and as far as we know, there's no coal. So turning that rust into steel is in itself a non-trivial exercise.
It was a nontrivial exercise in the first place so I'm just not seeing the big deal here. My view is that getting 1000 people to Mars alive is going to be far harder than figuring out how to make stuff and grow food once you get there. It's also worth noting that Mars probably is littered with a vast number of iron-bearing meteorites which aren't oxidized.
It isn't easy being the parent of a six-year-old. However, it's a pretty small price to pay for having somebody around the house who understands computers.