SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: John Vosilla who wrote (131174)2/28/2017 5:13:43 PM
From: TobagoJack3 Recommendations

Recommended By
Arran Yuan
bart13
Peach

  Respond to of 217533
 
Re <<I notice no smog reaches out in the hills? How bad is the air in the cities really?>>

- in the countrysides, non-issue, and china is a 'big' place
- in the cities, bad-enough and requires and is getting action
- however, london at times has beijing absolutely / relatively beat in so far as smog is concerned
- china needs to go renewable and nuclear, and that in any case is the plan. execution is good so far. watch & brief.

Re <<Your climate changing as dramatically as subtropical Florida has last 20 years? Is much hotter at night year long we get longer periods of drought and the rains seem more intense come in buckets compared to scattered afternoon thundershowers in old days.>>

- places where it had not snowed for awhile starts snowing, etc etc
- storms seem bigger, and occasionally out of season

- am inclined to think people effect on climate is not decisive, but do not know, perhaps only whistling in graveyard

- would like to leave the kids a manageable planet in any case

- do not believe goldman sachs should have a role in fixing the planet should the planet requires fixing



To: John Vosilla who wrote (131174)8/28/2020 10:12:03 PM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 217533
 
Re <<I notice no smog reaches out in the hills? How bad is the air in the cities really?>>

Improved a great deal in the interim, as the domain went green in big way that matters, per imperatives give rise to solutions.

In the meantime, about the village young (late 20s early 30s) lady cited in the 2017 post Message 32906721

A follow-up yesterday Message 32905278

and given so, irrespective of any Cold War 2.0, suspect the more optimistic scenario painted her shall win out Message 30998854

<<In the long term, the most optimistic scenario would see continued high growth rates in Asia and an acceleration of economic growth in Africa, coupled with a narrowing of income differences within rich and poor countries alike through more activist social policies (higher taxes on the rich, better public education, and greater equality of opportunity). Some economists, from Adam Smith onward, hoped that this rosy scenario of growing global equality would follow from the even spread of technological progress around the globe and the increasingly rational implementation of domestic policies.>>
which would also be bullish for gold, same as the pessimistic case, a rare win-win wagering opportunity.
<<Unfortunately, much gloomier forecasts seem more plausible. The trade and technology war between China and the United States, while perhaps understandable from a narrow U.S. strategic point of view, is fundamentally pernicious from the global point of view. It will prevent the spread of technology and hamper improvements in living standards across large swaths of the world. Slowing growth will make it harder to eradicate poverty and likely preserve current levels of global inequality. In other words, something like the opposite of the initial dynamic of globalization might come to be: the gap between American and Chinese middle classes may be preserved, but at the cost of the slower (or negative) income growth in both the United States and China. Improvements in real income would be sacrificed in order to freeze the pecking order of the global income distribution. The net real income gain for all concerned would be zero.>>