Like I said, the next Space Race?
We did not go there 50 years ago purely out of scientific curiosity.
2 Likes
they could easily decide to restrict 80% of the world’s refined rare earth metals and screw stuff up. There are almost no refineries outside of China and it would take years to get them online
1 Like
Is it a race? when publicly, it seems like it’s been abandoned.
It sounds more like catch up than race. Unless, there’s already a secret underground base there that no one is talking about. 
Indeed. But that would mean forsaking not only the immediate revenue from sales of materials but also facing knock-on effects from the impact on both directly-related trade (chips) as well as inevitable escalations of the trade war.
I doubt they have landed humans on the moon. The horn will surely be blown loud and long when they accomplish that feat.
More on rare earths and all things “green”.
“For the uncoated spherical graphite which is the processed anode material that is used in lithium ion batteries, China controls 100% of the supply.”
Yup. How green can it be when a core component is dependent on a foreign power’s whims.
Its relative greenness depends on its lifecycle characteristics - production, net reduction in emissions as a result of substitution, final disposition - not on who supplies it.
2 Likes
Yup, it is totally green when you can’t get it because you can’t make it. 
Speaking of how green something can be. It’s a green as how safe government says Tesla’s are… 
Of course, everyone can trust the government(personnel) and what they say. 
We can dream, aim and want all that’s good(for whom?). In the end, it’s how much diligence we all want to put into something, and how much personal agenda plays into it.
Li-ion components and complete cells are quite readily available today and have been for decades. Appears that making money is more important to those situated in potential chokepoints than trade embargoes.
No idea what Tesla’s AutoPilot woes have to do with this.
Nothing directly. I only cite is as an example of how things that are claimed aren’t always what they turn out to be. How people elected, hired, appointed into positions that affect the majority or an individual aren’t always on the level.
“PS: Today, I learned politicians can pay themselves a salary from their campaign. I never knew that…”
This is what Al Gore was ranting about in the 90’s with his lock box analogy. We still elected our way into Citizen’s United.
Not sure what you mean. Can you expound?
in response to not knowing how ocasio pays rent in bronx. it’s actually not as expensive as you think. You can get apartments at working wages, it just involves a lot of sacrifices and compromises that people outside of new york are not accustomed to. i had a friend live in bushwick for years on food service wages on her own but her bedroom was also the living room walk thru space for example.
as for the al gore response, sorry, I just reread the context. i was multi tasking. the lock box analogy al gore made was in regards to social security and not campaign funds. also, al gore did seek to change how campaign finances were done , salaries were not an explicit part of that, but still very related.
in terms of al gore’s campaign finance ideals vs today’s current state I’ll try to go 19 years in reverse chonological order. Starting most recent
the laws state that a politican may pay themselves a salary from campiagn funds HOWEVER. the salary may not exceed the lowest salary currently paid for the office they are running for (ie the lowest paid senator / preseident/ whatever). post citizen’s united, there is now much more breathing room for a politician to pay themselves and others salary from a higher pool of funds. (ie, appointing family members as campaign advisers, essentially paying their kid’s college instead of their own pocket et al)
a political action committe, at face definition, is a good thing. in practice if serves to often obscure the source and destination of a political donation. a form of money laundering. it can also serve to hide the AMOUNT given if multiple PACs are coordinating on the same agenda, essentially acting as multipliers on how much money is given per issue.
Antonin scalia was the hinge vote supreme court that enabled citizens united. essentially unlimited campaign donations as long as the donation was documented. (keep in mind this was before the PAC adaptation, so his intent was pure)
Al gore lost the election, Electing George bush jr. This lead to a historically unprecedented judicial fight. Antonin Scalia was nominated
when al gore ran in 2000-ish, he touted “Campaign fianance reform” as the number one platform item. How a politican funds their tv ads. the gas for their bus. this money trail, hypthetically, leads to bias in politicans making legiaslation that favors their donors:
which might have been motivated by this half baked scandal:
not sure if i did everything clearly as possible. i’m multitasking right now.
1 Like
Thanks for the information. It’s going to be a long read, but appreciated.
Is this view widely held, or your own? Curious, because it is interesting.
I don’t think it’s hypothetical. I was told by someone from a rural area, that “Out here, politics is the business.”. Quite an eye-opening(and discouraging) statement.
Interesting stuff about China gate. Seems like that was about the time, or soon after (give or take some years) they objectively aimed to be the manufacturing hub of the world.
1 Like
i mean, the whole being against Super PACs is very common in libertarian right and very left circles. donald trump’s late tea party campapign motto was “drain the swamp” which mainly meant wealthy politicians but in the right narrative it’s left centrist elites. The Democrat party insiders.
As far as drawing the whole thread from Al Gore to today it’s commonly written about in really dry political history essays but most voters don’t read that nonsense.
I think one of my more interesting awakenings recently was reading judge scalia’s opinion essay on that case and I really would like to believe his intent was ultimately pure. He believed in his heart that voters weren’t stupid and couldn’t be bought. HOWEVER one thing I’ve noted is in interviews AFTER the decision, with all the PAC modeling and systems in place, asking him if he still stood by that decision he doubled down like a stubborn school boy. Which makes it hard to be a fan of him.
With the recent sway of extremely far left independently funded voters his opinion at the time of the decision might not be that far off the mark. Not sure if there are many conservative crowdfunded candidates but i’m sure they exist outside my information bubble.
here’s a really good article barely 30 days old chronicling both red and and blue freshman elects and their relationship to pac slush funds (the runover left over money and where it goes) it’ll be interesting to see how the anti PAC candidates handle their beliefs when the money is being shoved into their pockets.
(i should add that i even voted on candidates based on this issue and I’m still skeptical. Like if someone was shoving 50k in MY pocket yea… If I’m being intellectually honest here i don’t know how i would behave)
I’m no senior political analyst but this video popped up on my feed regarding the “green new deal”:
Seems a bit lofty, when they don’t actually offer any solutions, just “guidelines”
I’m writing up a “green new deal” myself that says we need to have have a dyson sphere by 2030, to start the conversation.
3 Likes
I hear a lot of nice sounding words, but no real meaning behind them.
Politicians, same everywhere.
I’d say they will flip flop. One is only anti something until they become one themselves.
P.S. from the article.
“It’s not inherently bad to have one if you are one of the few members of Congress who actually uses it for its intended purpose, but that’s fairly rare at this point,” Noti said.
Zach Wamp, a co-chairman of Issue One’s ReFormers Caucus and a former Tennessee GOP congressman, said he encourages new members to avoid that pressure, though he recognized they were unlikely to follow his advice.“It sure looks like now you have to do it in order to advance, but it doesn’t make it right,” he said. “It is a proliferation that is unhealthy. It pollutes the Congress, and it leads to, I would call it, unintentional corruption.”