US-americans have just no sense for long term projects. The US-empire has no time, everything in the economy must be fast, but changing the economy does not happen in a few years. It takes decades, even in socialist PR China. But everything has a start and an end. The world does not need US-cars with great gas-consumption. Small and medium sized cars are the future, low consumption and very low emissions. The mega cities of the world demand that. Look at the dusty skies over chinese cities. China is reforming its economy to green right now. It is the same with energy effiency in housing and construction. If the US-citizens vote for the Repulicans they vote for the old ways and these lead just into the abyss of decline.

Firewing, please provide examples of communist/socialist or otherwise state-run projects running budgets in the trillions which led to monumental increases in technological development.

China isn't "reforming its economy to green right now." It builds multiple coal power plants every month. You're factually incorrect and you insult us by spouting such ignorance as if you have any clue what you're talking about. Most of their green "industry" is based on selling idiots in the US/Europe "green" technology (thanks to the competitive edge of their slave wages) at rates that workers in free nations cannot match.

Your argument that "government can innovate and do it efficiently!" is based entirely on lies. China is a HUGE polluter. China RAPES its environment. You don't have a single example of state-"invested"-capital producing innovation beyond a few horrible tortured examples which the free market would obviously (and DID) pick up on and do the real innovation with.

You talk about Republicans in the USA clinging to "old ways" and leading to "decline." Where are your examples of anything else? What are you basing your monumental claim that government "investment" will save economies, create innovation, and expand whole economies of hundreds of millions of people on?

You have no examples. Your argument is based entirely on ignorance and lies. "Green" investments amount to wasted trillions of dollars, no advancements, no new sources of energy (If you require more energy produced by coal power than your technology produces in its lifetime in order to produce your new technology, you've produced [spit]; learn basic math skills; kt hnx bai). Where do you get your faith in this fairytail? I want to believe, as you do. But you're not providing me with any reason to.

Mace, your use of the word "elects" is a lie. How can we have a discussion on a forum when you openly confirm that you have absolutely no interest in the truth, insulting everyone's intelligence?

On top of the obvious nonsense you predicated your statement on, you offered no example of the bull[spit] claim you made in action. Has China's oppressive authoritarian regime ever made such an "investment" which "payed off"? (aka payed dividends) No? Then what are you talking about?

I can give a LOT of examples of free markets producing innovation. I can give a LOT of examples of free markets bettering the lives of absolutely everybody in those societies which had [relatively] free markets.

I can give a LOT of examples of state-"invested" failures which wasted billions and even trillions of dollars which could, obviously, have been better spent (or not taxed in the first place) elsewhere. This money would have had a real impact in increasing the standards of living of the people who earned it, had it not been wasted.

Where are your examples? I get it. You're smart. You're educated. You have these lofty notions that government, like God, can do super awesome things if it just has TONS of money and legal authority to do ANYthing. So, being as smart and educated as you are, where are your examples? Want me to believe you? Want anyone to believe you? Have you convinced yourself? How? Why? What's convinced you? Where are your examples?

Make your case. This is a politics forum. That you feel warm when you pee yourself and you like feeling warm doesn't lead to the conclusion that it's psychologically desirable to piss yourself, nor that it's good for mankind.

[code]China isn't "reforming its economy to green right now."[/code]

It would be better to say they are attempting to be greener.

[code]
According to China

In case you missed it: in terms of solar energy, that's 3.3 GW compared to 0 if they didn't did have solar panels. In terms of hydro power, that's 200 GW compared to 0 if they didn't build hydro power plants.

How is that not "what they're doing"?

Dams are not without their controversies.

...you do realize your argument basically boils down to: since it hasn't happened yet, it must be never be?

3.3 GW is tiny, probably <1%. Surely you're not expecting solar energy to go from 0 to (some arbitrarily large number) in a few years? According to their 12th 5-year plan, they plan on expanding their solar capacity to 20 GW by 2020, possibly more. Yes that would still be a small portion of their total energy consumption, but that has already showed they want to be greener. And, why are you so transfixed on the solar power? At 200 GW, China is already the world's largest producer of hydro power. Surely hydro power is considered green by you?

I don't know what you are expecting when you say "real green aims", but incremental installations and small, short-term, realistic goals seem like a perfectly sensible approach to me.

Sure, exporting solar panels for profit is a goal, but it doesn't have to be the only goal. Their plan to expand solar-derived energy is an indication of that. There is nothing wrong with making something and trying to make money off it at the same time.

Okay, you've convinced me that China has no immediate goal to *significantly* increase their *solar* energy output.

However, I don't think this is contradictory to Firewing's original statement that China is attempting to be greener, considering their stated overall renewable energy goal is 20% by 2020.