What fuel source(s) will solve the energy crisis? We are running out of oil, coal does too much damage to the environment, solar and other renewables are still too inefficient, and we just don't have the technology for fusion reactors. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts /mlpol/.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
65 replies and 13 files omitted.
I personally think that solar and wind might be part of the of the solution as newer solar panels and wind turbines have gotten a lot cheaper in recent years. Thorium looks like a very promising candidate especially with the Danish and Chinese pilot projects. Hell even india has a pilot plant for thorium power. If pajeets can figure it out then how hard could it be?
The nuclear fuel we have access to now could power the current needs of Humanity for several thousand years. More when you consider that about 4 billion of the biggest cosnumers will be killed by flash eating fecal bacteria by 2038 (Don't go to India any time soon). Solar panels and large wind turbines need to be running optimally for several years to produce back the amount of electricity it took to produce them. Current reactor tech is fine.
>>392474
I agree that current reactor tech is good, but the fuel is not cheap because it is very difficult to refine U235 is very difficult to refine and U238 is like 99.3% of the ore. Thorium is like 99.98% Th232 it is also more difficult to make thorium into a weapon so these reactors could be built in foreign nations with less oversight.
I agree that current reactor tech is good, but the fuel is not cheap because it is very difficult to refine U235 is very difficult to refine and U238 is like 99.3% of the ore. Thorium is like 99.98% Th232 it is also more difficult to make thorium into a weapon so these reactors could be built in foreign nations with less oversight.
>>392472
>coal does too much damage to the environment
Nope, no one cares about it. World just running out of coal too. Why Britain stopped coal mining? Why Germany stopped it? Why Ukraine, formerly industrial center of Soviet Union turned into European Palestine? This is why. Reliable data extremely limited, I failed to find any serious research in English few years ago. New Russian research are classified, but I found one complex report for the government from 2015th. If you really want to know, how bad things really are.
"World energy markets evolution and its consequences for Russia" ERI RAS 2015
"Эволюция мировых энергетических рынков" РАН 2015
https://web.archive.org/web/https://www.eriras.ru/files/evolyutsiya-mirovyh-energeticheskih-rynkov-i-ee-posledstviya-dlya-rossii.pdf
"World Energy Consumption A Database 1820-2018" Paolo Malanima
https://histecon.fas.harvard.edu/energyhistory/DATABASE%20World%20Energy%20Consumption.pdf
Primary energy consumption directly correlates with economic output:
https://paste.debian.net/plain/1376272
[Read more] >coal does too much damage to the environment
Nope, no one cares about it. World just running out of coal too. Why Britain stopped coal mining? Why Germany stopped it? Why Ukraine, formerly industrial center of Soviet Union turned into European Palestine? This is why. Reliable data extremely limited, I failed to find any serious research in English few years ago. New Russian research are classified, but I found one complex report for the government from 2015th. If you really want to know, how bad things really are.
"World energy markets evolution and its consequences for Russia" ERI RAS 2015
"Эволюция мировых энергетических рынков" РАН 2015
https://web.archive.org/web/https://www.eriras.ru/files/evolyutsiya-mirovyh-energeticheskih-rynkov-i-ee-posledstviya-dlya-rossii.pdf
"World Energy Consumption A Database 1820-2018" Paolo Malanima
https://histecon.fas.harvard.edu/energyhistory/DATABASE%20World%20Energy%20Consumption.pdf
Primary energy consumption directly correlates with economic output:
https://paste.debian.net/plain/1376272
The energy crisis could be fixed in a matter of years if the government took nuclear energy seriously. Too bad they're too stupid and corrupt to do it.
>>392506
Coal is definitely pretty bad for the environment and I'm not talking about global warming here. There is mercury, NOx, and SOx in the fumes. It's not good. Not to say clean coal couldn't be done, but that would take research into underground thermal gassification or biogassification.
https://netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/biological-coal-gasification
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_coal_gasification
Coal is definitely pretty bad for the environment and I'm not talking about global warming here. There is mercury, NOx, and SOx in the fumes. It's not good. Not to say clean coal couldn't be done, but that would take research into underground thermal gassification or biogassification.
https://netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/biological-coal-gasification
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_coal_gasification
>>392472
>We are running out of oil
no, we're not. in fact, we could synthesize oil if we just put some research and development money into to producing it. just like a good whiskey, oil can be made, just need time and money to do so. oil is the most energy dense renewable resource we have. there's no reason not to use it.
personally, i think the real environmental damage is caused by roads. asphalt drains into the environment toxic chemicals. it also takes up an enormous amount of space, dividing up animal habitats.
dirt roads is the way to go. you can compact dirt and gravel so it's every bit as smooth as asphalt. but it's not toxic like asphalt is.
>We are running out of oil
no, we're not. in fact, we could synthesize oil if we just put some research and development money into to producing it. just like a good whiskey, oil can be made, just need time and money to do so. oil is the most energy dense renewable resource we have. there's no reason not to use it.
personally, i think the real environmental damage is caused by roads. asphalt drains into the environment toxic chemicals. it also takes up an enormous amount of space, dividing up animal habitats.
dirt roads is the way to go. you can compact dirt and gravel so it's every bit as smooth as asphalt. but it's not toxic like asphalt is.
>>392517
Yeah, once it gets to where asphault would be necessary ya may as well use trains / railstuffs.
Yeah, once it gets to where asphault would be necessary ya may as well use trains / railstuffs.
>>392517
We are running out of oil, but fracking bought us time. We can synthesize it from syngas though.
We are running out of oil, but fracking bought us time. We can synthesize it from syngas though.
>>392521
>We are running out of oil
oil is constantly renewing itself. you are obviously ignorant of how oil is formed in the earth. oil is basically the earths poop. the earth, nor you, will ever stop pooping until it's dead. and using that poop for energy isn't going to kill the earth.
>We are running out of oil
oil is constantly renewing itself. you are obviously ignorant of how oil is formed in the earth. oil is basically the earths poop. the earth, nor you, will ever stop pooping until it's dead. and using that poop for energy isn't going to kill the earth.
>>392517
The biggest problem with dirt and gravel roads is the dust that gets kicked up. Any real amount of traffic, or even just one jackwagon driving faster than a crawl, and visibility is reduced to practically zero.
That isn't to say it's useless. It would work extremely well for local roads, because you're (supposed to be) at low speed anyway. Frankly dirt or gravel would probably encourage that more than a sign. Rural roads are iffy because generally things are far enough apart you want to be going at speed, but usually the traffic is light enough for the dust to settle before the next vehicle comes along. Unless it's planting/harvesting season. Mud ruts would be a problem if they aren't maintained well, and since most roads are government owned, mud ruts will be a problem.
I don't believe it would be wise to try dirt or gravel for collectors or arterials though. Too many vehicles going too fast. Dust blindness would be a constant and completely negate the purpose of the road class by destroying speed and thus throughput. You could probably replace most arterials with rail, but even if they did that still leaves collectors.
Concrete is an alternative to asphalt, however I've been told it degrades faster and more significantly.
[Read more] The biggest problem with dirt and gravel roads is the dust that gets kicked up. Any real amount of traffic, or even just one jackwagon driving faster than a crawl, and visibility is reduced to practically zero.
That isn't to say it's useless. It would work extremely well for local roads, because you're (supposed to be) at low speed anyway. Frankly dirt or gravel would probably encourage that more than a sign. Rural roads are iffy because generally things are far enough apart you want to be going at speed, but usually the traffic is light enough for the dust to settle before the next vehicle comes along. Unless it's planting/harvesting season. Mud ruts would be a problem if they aren't maintained well, and since most roads are government owned, mud ruts will be a problem.
I don't believe it would be wise to try dirt or gravel for collectors or arterials though. Too many vehicles going too fast. Dust blindness would be a constant and completely negate the purpose of the road class by destroying speed and thus throughput. You could probably replace most arterials with rail, but even if they did that still leaves collectors.
Concrete is an alternative to asphalt, however I've been told it degrades faster and more significantly.
>>392524
>even just one jackwagon driving faster than a crawl
i drive an impreza, yea it's not a ferrari but it can go 60 MPH all the same, and there are dirty roads here and there where i can drive at 60mph without dust kicking up. i guess if it's abnormally dry?
>even just one jackwagon driving faster than a crawl
i drive an impreza, yea it's not a ferrari but it can go 60 MPH all the same, and there are dirty roads here and there where i can drive at 60mph without dust kicking up. i guess if it's abnormally dry?
>>392547
Yes, but, the fabrication of oil (depending on the ingredients used) is either an expensive process, or a prohibitably expensive process.
Yes, but, the fabrication of oil (depending on the ingredients used) is either an expensive process, or a prohibitably expensive process.
>>392524
>Concrete is an alternative to asphalt, however I've been told it degrades faster and more significantly.
lol...tell that to the roman aquaduct. then there's old joke, how many seasons does chicago have? two, winter and construction. because asphalt breaks almost as easily as dirt, arguably more. in the rust belt there are always potholes in the aftermath of winter.
the taconic parkway (in new york state) was concrete and it lasted until they recently replaced it with asphalt last year(2 years ago?), and it's falling apart already.
the people who tell you that concrete breaks more are probably trying to sell you asphlat.
>Concrete is an alternative to asphalt, however I've been told it degrades faster and more significantly.
lol...tell that to the roman aquaduct. then there's old joke, how many seasons does chicago have? two, winter and construction. because asphalt breaks almost as easily as dirt, arguably more. in the rust belt there are always potholes in the aftermath of winter.
the taconic parkway (in new york state) was concrete and it lasted until they recently replaced it with asphalt last year(2 years ago?), and it's falling apart already.
the people who tell you that concrete breaks more are probably trying to sell you asphlat.
>>392506
>Why Britain stopped coal mining? Why Germany stopped it
Because eco-activists?
>Why Ukraine, formerly industrial center of Soviet Union turned into European Palestine
Specifically at the moment Ukraine is at war. And in the period 1991-2014 nobody needed coal, even in Russia.
>Why Britain stopped coal mining? Why Germany stopped it
Because eco-activists?
>Why Ukraine, formerly industrial center of Soviet Union turned into European Palestine
Specifically at the moment Ukraine is at war. And in the period 1991-2014 nobody needed coal, even in Russia.
>>392523
Oil is not a poop, retard. It is the remains (particularly bones) of various organisms that lived millions of years ago. And this oil was formed over the same millions of years.
And synthetic oil is made primarily from coal.
Oil is not a poop, retard. It is the remains (particularly bones) of various organisms that lived millions of years ago. And this oil was formed over the same millions of years.
And synthetic oil is made primarily from coal.
>>392550
You don't drive cars on Roman aqueducts. And, oddly enough, Roman aqueducts have not come down to us in perfect condition. They're ruined.
You don't drive cars on Roman aqueducts. And, oddly enough, Roman aqueducts have not come down to us in perfect condition. They're ruined.
>>392547
Yes it does. Petroleum geologists can agree on that much.
>>392550
Roman concrete lasts longer than our roads because it doesn't have to deal with the same stresses from traffic.
>>392552
Uranium might not be renewable, but there is enough of it to last for thousands of years. That's plenty of time to develop fusion.
Yes it does. Petroleum geologists can agree on that much.
>>392550
Roman concrete lasts longer than our roads because it doesn't have to deal with the same stresses from traffic.
>>392552
Uranium might not be renewable, but there is enough of it to last for thousands of years. That's plenty of time to develop fusion.
>>392550
The guy who told me that said he worked 30 years for Indiana's DOT. Barring corruption (always a possibility) I doubt he was trying to sell me on asphalt.
The guy who told me that said he worked 30 years for Indiana's DOT. Barring corruption (always a possibility) I doubt he was trying to sell me on asphalt.
>>393434
Biogasification of coal might be an option that could both be environmentally friendly and create jobs.
Biogasification of coal might be an option that could both be environmentally friendly and create jobs.
>>393436
Agreed, but biogasification of coal can also be used to produce polymers, solvents, and fertilizers.
Agreed, but biogasification of coal can also be used to produce polymers, solvents, and fertilizers.
>>393437
Yes, but the energy needed to produce those polymers is better derived from nuclear.
Nuclear is the most-powerful and least-polluting source of energy on earth.
Yes, but the energy needed to produce those polymers is better derived from nuclear.
Nuclear is the most-powerful and least-polluting source of energy on earth.
>>393438
So long as you don't mind your multi-city powerplant melting every so often, leaving several nearby cities unlivable for the next seven to ten decades.
I've read a few interesting thoughts about nuclear power. One, that fusion is doable but resembles juggling marbles using rubber bands that you have to hold from outside the box where the juggling needs to happen
Two is, that yes fission generators could be made safe but that's so expensive, and corporations are so greedy and short sighted that only a crazed madman who should never be in charge of any construction team could be qualified to direct the construction of our nuclear power plants.
I recommend, personally, focusing on power production we can personally understand and manufacture. Fusion might get there, atmospheric energy has potential to ease the load, ZPE modules probably actually exist and/or could exist
Except of course "they" only allow energy they can tax you for. So the first step in solving the energy crisis is eliminating the government (or variations on that theme)
[Read more] So long as you don't mind your multi-city powerplant melting every so often, leaving several nearby cities unlivable for the next seven to ten decades.
I've read a few interesting thoughts about nuclear power. One, that fusion is doable but resembles juggling marbles using rubber bands that you have to hold from outside the box where the juggling needs to happen
Two is, that yes fission generators could be made safe but that's so expensive, and corporations are so greedy and short sighted that only a crazed madman who should never be in charge of any construction team could be qualified to direct the construction of our nuclear power plants.
I recommend, personally, focusing on power production we can personally understand and manufacture. Fusion might get there, atmospheric energy has potential to ease the load, ZPE modules probably actually exist and/or could exist
Except of course "they" only allow energy they can tax you for. So the first step in solving the energy crisis is eliminating the government (or variations on that theme)
>>393439
>melting every so often
100% preventable, unless you're a retarded slavshit commie yes-man who can't even boil water.
>Two is, that yes fission generators could be made safe but that's so expensive, and corporations are so greedy and short sighted that only a crazed madman who should never be in charge of any construction team could be qualified to direct the construction of our nuclear power plants.
This is where regulation and inspection comes into play. Corporations should need to compete for quality standards for the privilege of building nuclear facilities.
>focusing on power production we can personally understand and manufacture
We can understand and manufacture nuclear energy. It's not as complicated as it sounds.
>melting every so often
100% preventable, unless you're a retarded slavshit commie yes-man who can't even boil water.
>Two is, that yes fission generators could be made safe but that's so expensive, and corporations are so greedy and short sighted that only a crazed madman who should never be in charge of any construction team could be qualified to direct the construction of our nuclear power plants.
This is where regulation and inspection comes into play. Corporations should need to compete for quality standards for the privilege of building nuclear facilities.
>focusing on power production we can personally understand and manufacture
We can understand and manufacture nuclear energy. It's not as complicated as it sounds.
>>393439
You seem to be under the impression that nuclear engineers have been sitting with their thumbs up their asses since the 1980's. That's not the case. Modern reactors are much safer especially the thorium reactors that are finally being rolled out.
You seem to be under the impression that nuclear engineers have been sitting with their thumbs up their asses since the 1980's. That's not the case. Modern reactors are much safer especially the thorium reactors that are finally being rolled out.
>>393438
Agreed for the most part. Fuel could be made for combustion engines from the biogas. I'm not convinced that lithium ion batteries are better for the environment than combustion engines. Sodium ion batteries and calcium ion batteries may be solutions though, but the technology is not as mature.
Agreed for the most part. Fuel could be made for combustion engines from the biogas. I'm not convinced that lithium ion batteries are better for the environment than combustion engines. Sodium ion batteries and calcium ion batteries may be solutions though, but the technology is not as mature.
>>393439
>leaving several nearby cities unlivable for the next seven to ten decades.
Fukushima and the area around Three Mile Island are perfectly habitable and their accidents are more recent than Chernobyl. We shouldn't abandon nuclear power just because of one major incident from the early days, just as we didn't abandon boilers when they kept blowing up factories and steamships randomly in the 1800s.
>leaving several nearby cities unlivable for the next seven to ten decades.
Fukushima and the area around Three Mile Island are perfectly habitable and their accidents are more recent than Chernobyl. We shouldn't abandon nuclear power just because of one major incident from the early days, just as we didn't abandon boilers when they kept blowing up factories and steamships randomly in the 1800s.
>>393441
>100% preventable
yes but that's never been done, so it defacto isn't simply because humans would be building the thing.
>Corporations should need to compete
yeah, umm...do you not know how terrible that would be? "corporations competing" involves buying favors. the "standards" would be lowered for this particular installation based on how well they greased governmental palms.
>>393446
>just as we didn't abandon boilers
I'm not trying to stand in the way of progress for the sake of being a fuddy-duddy, I just don't trust government regulators, and corporate regulators interacting with government is exactly where the "deep state" got most of its cash in the first place.
thus,
>>393441
>It's not as complicated as it sounds.
You build one in your garage, and I'll believe you.
[Read more] >100% preventable
yes but that's never been done, so it defacto isn't simply because humans would be building the thing.
>Corporations should need to compete
yeah, umm...do you not know how terrible that would be? "corporations competing" involves buying favors. the "standards" would be lowered for this particular installation based on how well they greased governmental palms.
>>393446
>just as we didn't abandon boilers
I'm not trying to stand in the way of progress for the sake of being a fuddy-duddy, I just don't trust government regulators, and corporate regulators interacting with government is exactly where the "deep state" got most of its cash in the first place.
thus,
>>393441
>It's not as complicated as it sounds.
You build one in your garage, and I'll believe you.
>>392472
>What fuel source(s) will solve the energy crisis?
Repatriate 75 million non-Whites and their children. Then the economy temporally will collapse, however fewer people will compensate for the unemployment. All which will traduce in a country with less need for energy.
>What fuel source(s) will solve the energy crisis?
Repatriate 75 million non-Whites and their children. Then the economy temporally will collapse, however fewer people will compensate for the unemployment. All which will traduce in a country with less need for energy.
>>393463
the approach from 2030 is to directly kill fifteen out of every 16 people, and spread the survivors evenly across 1,000 cities allowed to remain
the approach from 2030 is to directly kill fifteen out of every 16 people, and spread the survivors evenly across 1,000 cities allowed to remain
>>393461
>yes but that's never been done
It's done all the time. There are lots of nuclear plants with no problems whatsoever. The handful of nuclear accidents were all completely preventable.
Nuclear energy has killed the fewest people per unit of energy generated, including all those preventable nuclear disasters in history. Even windmills kill more people.
Coalfire power plants leak more radiation than nuclear power plants too, because they can't figure out what to do with the toxic coal ash.
>"corporations competing" involves buying favors
No, that's just cronyism, not competition.
They should compete to show who can offer the best quality standards.
>the "standards" would be lowered for this particular installation based on how well they greased governmental palms
That can go for any infrastructure; that doesn't mean we should never build anything ever. Kill all of the corrupt government bureaucrats, and then we can have nice things.
>You build one in your garage
That's illegal, for a good reason. I know how it works though.
[Read more] >yes but that's never been done
It's done all the time. There are lots of nuclear plants with no problems whatsoever. The handful of nuclear accidents were all completely preventable.
Nuclear energy has killed the fewest people per unit of energy generated, including all those preventable nuclear disasters in history. Even windmills kill more people.
Coalfire power plants leak more radiation than nuclear power plants too, because they can't figure out what to do with the toxic coal ash.
>"corporations competing" involves buying favors
No, that's just cronyism, not competition.
They should compete to show who can offer the best quality standards.
>the "standards" would be lowered for this particular installation based on how well they greased governmental palms
That can go for any infrastructure; that doesn't mean we should never build anything ever. Kill all of the corrupt government bureaucrats, and then we can have nice things.
>You build one in your garage
That's illegal, for a good reason. I know how it works though.
>>393461
>I just don't trust government regulators, and corporate regulators interacting with government is exactly where the "deep state" got most of its cash in the first place.
Then you should move into a mud hut in the middle of the Sahara desert, because every kind of electricity infrastructure can cause mass casualty events with improper management and bad regulation. Oil spills, coal ash contamination, groundwater corruption, wildfires, fiberglass contamination, burst dams, fishkills, spent solar panel pollution, earthquakes, deforestation, etc.
Nuclear energy is the safest source of energy by far. If you would deal with the consequences of oil/coal/wind-turbines/solar-panels/dams/natural-gas/woodfire/etc, which are all vastly more polluting and dangerous, you should also be able to accept nuclear energy.
>I just don't trust government regulators, and corporate regulators interacting with government is exactly where the "deep state" got most of its cash in the first place.
Then you should move into a mud hut in the middle of the Sahara desert, because every kind of electricity infrastructure can cause mass casualty events with improper management and bad regulation. Oil spills, coal ash contamination, groundwater corruption, wildfires, fiberglass contamination, burst dams, fishkills, spent solar panel pollution, earthquakes, deforestation, etc.
Nuclear energy is the safest source of energy by far. If you would deal with the consequences of oil/coal/wind-turbines/solar-panels/dams/natural-gas/woodfire/etc, which are all vastly more polluting and dangerous, you should also be able to accept nuclear energy.
>>393461
The problem with government regulators is the competent ones don't have the power to do anything about issues. See the USCSB. However in regards to nuclear regulators I believe the USNRC does have the authority to take real action.
The problem with government regulators is the competent ones don't have the power to do anything about issues. See the USCSB. However in regards to nuclear regulators I believe the USNRC does have the authority to take real action.
>>393479
>but the question was how to produce more energy.
But why would you want to do that? That policy is not aligned with an isolationist America First.
>but the question was how to produce more energy.
But why would you want to do that? That policy is not aligned with an isolationist America First.
>>393481
>Then you should move into a mud hut in the middle of the Sahara desert
Nope. Anon has a point. Nuclear is an avenue for more corruption.
>Then you should move into a mud hut in the middle of the Sahara desert
Nope. Anon has a point. Nuclear is an avenue for more corruption.
>>393501
>But why would you want to do that?
...So we can use it? To keep prices down and increase productivity and meet our technological demands.
>That policy is not aligned with an isolationist America First.
Yes it is. Having access to cheap, abundant energy is in the interest of all Americans.
>>393502
It is no more corrupt than any other source of energy.
>But why would you want to do that?
...So we can use it? To keep prices down and increase productivity and meet our technological demands.
>That policy is not aligned with an isolationist America First.
Yes it is. Having access to cheap, abundant energy is in the interest of all Americans.
>>393502
It is no more corrupt than any other source of energy.
>>393503
>So we can use it? To keep prices down and increase productivity and meet our technological demands
America First means to downsizing. The Treasury is broke and an about face is a must.
>It is no more corrupt than any other source of energy
It requires investment and America First is about to balance the books.
>So we can use it? To keep prices down and increase productivity and meet our technological demands
America First means to downsizing. The Treasury is broke and an about face is a must.
>It is no more corrupt than any other source of energy
It requires investment and America First is about to balance the books.
>>393504
>America First means to downsizing.
It does not have to be that way. Nobody voted for energy austerity.
>The Treasury is broke and an about face is a must.
That's all the more reason to produce more energy.
>It requires investment
All sources of energy require investment.
>America First is about to balance the books.
All the 'America first' politicians are pro-nuclear, and pro increasing energy production across the board. You are the first person I've encountered who thinks 'America first' somehow means LESS energy.
>America First means to downsizing.
It does not have to be that way. Nobody voted for energy austerity.
>The Treasury is broke and an about face is a must.
That's all the more reason to produce more energy.
>It requires investment
All sources of energy require investment.
>America First is about to balance the books.
All the 'America first' politicians are pro-nuclear, and pro increasing energy production across the board. You are the first person I've encountered who thinks 'America first' somehow means LESS energy.
>>393505
>Nobody voted for energy austerity.
You will have no energy austerity because the economy will shrink, of course if Trumps delivers with deporting 50-75 millions.
>Nobody voted for energy austerity.
You will have no energy austerity because the economy will shrink, of course if Trumps delivers with deporting 50-75 millions.
>>393506
>You will have no energy austerity because the economy will shrink
It does not have to do that.
>of course if Trumps delivers with deporting 50-75 millions
Deporting shitskins parasites would grow the economy.
>You will have no energy austerity because the economy will shrink
It does not have to do that.
>of course if Trumps delivers with deporting 50-75 millions
Deporting shitskins parasites would grow the economy.
>>393507
>It does not have to do that.
Yes, it will. Removing 50-75 million of consumers will do the trick.
>Deporting shitskins parasites would grow the economy.
No, it will create an economic shock, the real state market will crash (think Wall Street and the '''landlords'''), retail will go in smoke, the health industry will be paralyzed, and an acute shortage of labor will explode. Add to that cutting the lifeline of government jobs and most of the artificial and parasitical medium class will disappear.
>It does not have to do that.
Yes, it will. Removing 50-75 million of consumers will do the trick.
>Deporting shitskins parasites would grow the economy.
No, it will create an economic shock, the real state market will crash (think Wall Street and the '''landlords'''), retail will go in smoke, the health industry will be paralyzed, and an acute shortage of labor will explode. Add to that cutting the lifeline of government jobs and most of the artificial and parasitical medium class will disappear.
>>393509
>Removing 50-75 million of consumers will do the trick.
And that would grow the economy in the long term, because it would remove the financial strain of illegals and criminals preventing people from building businesses and having families and raising their standards of living across the board.
And regardless, people will still want cheaper energy.
>muh shock
You talk like a liberal. Deporting illegals is beneficial to our economy.
>Removing 50-75 million of consumers will do the trick.
And that would grow the economy in the long term, because it would remove the financial strain of illegals and criminals preventing people from building businesses and having families and raising their standards of living across the board.
And regardless, people will still want cheaper energy.
>muh shock
You talk like a liberal. Deporting illegals is beneficial to our economy.
>>393511
>And that would grow the economy in the long term
That's the idea. But first the non-White gangrene must be cut. Extremely painful for the wallet, but it must be done.
>And that would grow the economy in the long term
That's the idea. But first the non-White gangrene must be cut. Extremely painful for the wallet, but it must be done.
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-50] [51-100] [101-115] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
115 replies | 15 files | 37 UUIDs | Page 3
[Add to Thread Watcher]