[QUOTE=ewmayer;255150]And speaking of Keynesian[/QUOTE]... which reminds me of something:

As I understand it, the Keynesian theory is that increasing government expenditures and/or the budget deficit stimulates the economy, correct? (But many argue that that theory is wrong.)

Isn't the following equally Keynesian: Decreasing the budget deficit (such as by raising taxes) and/or decreasing government expenditures would tend to slow down a rising economy ? Or does Keynes differentiate between raising taxes and decreasing expenditures in that regard?

[url="http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/03/13/some-perspective-on-the-japan-earthquake/"]This[/url] has an alternate viewpoint on the severity of the damage in Japan.

[QUOTE=jasonp;255298][url="http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/03/13/some-perspective-on-the-japan-earthquake/"]This[/url] has an alternate viewpoint on the severity of the damage in Japan.[/QUOTE]

That author makes some interesting points, but - specifically with respect to the nuclear plants - for someone to claim, as he does, that
[i]
"There is currently a lot of panicked reporting about the problems with two of Tokyo Electric’s nuclear power generation plants in Fukushima. Although few people would admit this out loud, [u]I think it would be fair to include these in the count of systems which functioned exactly as designed.[/u]"[/i]

is similarly disingenuous as Homeland Security czar Janet Napolitano claiming, in the immediate aftermath of the underwear-bomber incident a couple of Christmases ago, that "the system worked".

[QUOTE=ewmayer;255367]

is similarly disingenuous as Homeland Security czar Janet Napolitano claiming, in the immediate aftermath of the underwear-bomber incident a couple of Christmases ago, that "the system worked".[/QUOTE]

Careful here. Even Bruce Schneier supports this view that "the system
worked".

They got as far as scramming the operating cores and cooling them down...then the diesel backups for cooling got flooded, and the hydrogen residuals exploded....and the seawater is going to ruin the reactors and their cores....
I think someone must have falsified the records about the Tsunami studies.....

[QUOTE=Christenson;255384]They got as far as scramming the operating cores and cooling them down...then the diesel backups for cooling got flooded, and the hydrogen residuals exploded....and the seawater is going to ruin the reactors and their cores....
I think someone must have falsified the records about the Tsunami studies.....[/QUOTE]"Never ascribe to malice ..."

All that's required is for no sufficiently senior person to have said, "What happens if a tsunami disables the diesel backups after an earthquake has severed power lines and ruptured resupply roads?"

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;255371]Careful here. Even Bruce Schneier supports this view that "the system worked".[/QUOTE]Strangely enough, I'm on Bruce's side on this one.

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16contain.html?src=me&ref=world]Experts Had Long Criticized Potential Weakness in Design of Stricken Reactor[/url]
[quote]The warnings were stark and issued repeatedly as far back as 1972: If the cooling systems ever failed at a “Mark 1” nuclear reactor, the primary containment vessel surrounding the reactor would probably burst as the fuel rods inside overheated. Dangerous radiation would spew into the environment.

Now, with one Mark 1 containment vessel damaged at the embattled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant and other vessels there under severe strain, the weaknesses of the design — developed in the 1960s by General Electric — could be contributing to the unfolding catastrophe.

When the ability to cool a reactor is compromised, the containment vessel is the last line of defense. Typically made of steel and concrete, it is designed to prevent — for a time — melting fuel rods from spewing radiation into the environment if cooling efforts completely fail.

In some reactors, known as pressurized water reactors, the system is sealed inside a thick steel-and-cement tomb. Most nuclear reactors around the world are of this type.

But the type of containment vessel and pressure suppression system used in the failing reactors at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant is physically less robust, and it has long been thought to be more susceptible to failure in an emergency than competing designs. In the United States, 23 reactors at 16 locations use the Mark 1 design, including the Oyster Creek plant in central New Jersey, the Dresden plant near Chicago and the Monticello plant near Minneapolis.
[b]
G.E. began making the Mark 1 boiling-water reactors in the 1960s, marketing them as cheaper and easier to build — in part because they used a comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure.
[/b]
American regulators began identifying weaknesses very early on. [/quote]
[i]My Comment:[/i] So I guess if you define "system working as designed" in this case as "designed so that if the cooling systems ever failed, the primary containment vessel surrounding the reactor would probably burst as the fuel rods inside overheated, spewing radiation into the environment", then yes, "the system worked" so far and is on track to "fulfill its design parameters" beautifully. I stand corrected.
[quote]In 1972, Stephen H. Hanauer, then a safety official with the Atomic Energy Commission, recommended that the Mark 1 system be discontinued because it presented unacceptable safety risks. Among the concerns cited was the smaller containment design, which was more susceptible to explosion and rupture from a buildup in hydrogen — a situation that may have unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Later that same year, Joseph Hendrie, who would later become chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a successor agency to the atomic commission, said the idea of a ban on such systems was attractive. But the technology had been so widely accepted by the industry and regulatory officials, he said, that “reversal of this hallowed policy, particularly at this time, could well be the end of nuclear power.”

In an e-mail on Tuesday, David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Program at the Union for Concerned Scientists, said those words seemed ironic now, given the potential global ripples from the Japanese accident.

“Not banning them might be the end of nuclear power,” said Mr. Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer who spent 17 years working in nuclear facilities, including three that used the G.E. design.

Questions about the design escalated in the mid-1980s, when Harold Denton, an official with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, asserted that Mark 1 reactors had a 90 percent probability of bursting should the fuel rods overheat and melt in an accident.

Industry officials disputed that assessment, saying the chance of failure was only about 10 percent.

Michael Tetuan, a spokesman for G.E.’s water and power division, staunchly defended the technology this week, calling it “the industry’s workhorse with a proven track record of safety and reliability for more than 40 years.”[/quote]
Until last week. Analogously, one could argue that "The cold-war-era nuclear arms race helped keep the world safe from nuclear war for over 50 years." I feel ever so much better knowing that.

[quote]Mr. Tetuan said there are currently 32 Mark 1 boiling-water reactors operating safely around the globe. “There has never been a breach of a Mark 1 containment system,” he said.[/quote]
Until now. [The high levels of radiation strongly suggest that at least one containment system has been seriously compromised.]

So, spinning statistics like Mr. Tetuan is paid to do but in the opposite direction, should we conclude that "Mark 1 containment systems have at least a 1-in-30 chance of failing catastrophically over the design lifetime of the reactor"?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;255425]Until last week. Analogously, one could argue that "The cold-war-era nuclear arms race helped keep the world safe from nuclear war for over 50 years." I feel ever so much better knowing that.

Until now. [The high levels of radiation strongly suggest that at least one containment system has been seriously compromised.]

So, spinning statistics like Mr. Tetuan is paid to do but in the opposite direction, should we conclude that "Mark 1 containment systems have at least a 1-in-30 chance of failing catastrophically over the design lifetime of the reactor"?[/QUOTE]Are these the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster hearings? The words seem quite similar.

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster[/URL]

Time for a(nother) review of Richard Feynman's comments ( at [URL]http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/challenger-appendix.html[/URL] )

which end with:

"[FONT=verdana,helvetica,arial]For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.[/FONT]"

(Psst! Republicans! That was for you, too.)

I've posted many times, using thousands of words, about the conservative strategy, formed in the late 1970s, to give tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, but this guy does it better with one chart (of course). Go see it:

"Chart shows low tax burden for rich"

[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110316/ts_yblog_thelookout/chart-shows-low-tax-burden-for-rich;_ylt=AqQRacAOhjtfyjgybwmruXWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTRscmw0dHIwBGFzc2V0A3libG9nX3RoZWxvb2tvdXQvMjAxMTAzMTYvY2hhcnQtc2hvd3MtbG93LXRheC1idXJkZW4tZm9yLXJpY2gEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM0BHBvcwMxBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDY2hhcnRzaG93c2xv[/URL]

Related:

"Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power"

[URL]http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html[/URL]

"Income tax chart shows assault on middle class"

[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110316/bs_ac/8078506_income_tax_chart_shows_assault_on_middle_class;_ylt=Aq1ttaV2sjOaBvF_XJdVpIWUU80F;_ylu=X3oDMTQ1NzRyZmd1BGFzc2V0A2FjLzIwMTEwMzE2LzgwNzg1MDZfaW5jb21lX3RheF9jaGFydF9zaG93c19hc3NhdWx0X29uX21pZGRsZV9jbGFzcwRjY29kZQNyZG5iZQRjcG9zAzMEcG9zAzMEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNpbmNvbWV0YXhjaGE-[/URL]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;255605]Are these the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster hearings? The words seem quite similar.[/QUOTE]I meant that the [i]reasoning[/i] seemed quite similar.