Invite ye felawes and frendes desirous in gold to enter the gates of Shrewd'm, for they will thanke ye later.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 3
No. of Recommendations: 9
Pay-wall.
However, I did a quick check. The EU economy is doing fine. Just two of several articles.
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-economy-grows-m...https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/e...A summary of the articles:
The EU economy is showing signs of moderate growth, driven by robust domestic demand and a strong labor market, with projected GDP growth of around 1.1–1.4% in 2025. Inflation is expected to continue its decline, moving closer to the European Central Bank's target, while the unemployment rate is projected to fall to new lows.
A better outlook than we have, and we're in the midst of climate-change denial mania. Though, at this point, I think all we can hope for is amelioration. Most projections I have seen have said we already past the tipping-point. Via indirect effects, millions likely will die (e.g. war).
No. of Recommendations: 2
The focus on "climate change denial" is a deliberate psyops, to deflect from reality: The problem isn't people who perhaps incorrectly do not believe that man-made global warming (when did they switch it to "climate change" anyway?).
It's all the people who DO believe it, give lip service to how harmful they believe it is, yet by their actions, show that they don't think any personal sacrifices need to be made by themselves.
Think of all the rich white liberals who read the NY Times and Wa Post, and fret and gnash their teeth at Trump and MAGA and climate change deniers when they read about some stupid massive multi billion dollar green energy grift/failure, blaming same on Trump and "climate deniers."
Then they turn the page to the travel section to plan their kid's $250,000 "destination wedding" in Bora Bora.
In their 4,000 square foot "country cottage/vacation home."
Liberals and progressives don't live in reality, they are delusional. That's why Bernie Sanders can drool spittle while he shouts about climate change yet spend $700,000 on private jets to go nag people about it.
The rules don't apply to these folk.s
Fuck 'em.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Yep, if you'd archive before you post with WSJ, it'd work better. Paywall.
I'm not against nuclear energy/ Remember Advocatus Diabli? He'd say that sacrificing a few acres every few years was a reasonable cost to achieve climate goals. I thought that was a unique, but good position. Chernobyl is different and is arguably the worst catastrophe we've had with nuclear, so don't let Donny touch nuclear or were screwed.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Liberals and progressives don't live in reality, they are delusional. That's why Bernie Sanders can drool spittle while he shouts about climate change yet spend $700,000 on private jets to go nag people about it.
The newest stupid thing was carving out a highway in the middle of the Brazillian rainforest so that the rich people going to the climate conference can get there faster. You can't make these people up.
Back to the article, which the libs are (of course) dismissing without reading: the European have screwed themselves, big time:
European politicians pitched the continent’s green transition to voters as a win-win: Citizens would benefit from green jobs and cheap, abundant solar and wind energy alongside a sharp reduction in carbon emissions.
Nearly two decades on, the promise has largely proved costly for consumers and damaging for the economy.
Yep. How bad is it?
Germany now has the highest domestic electricity prices in the developed world, while the U.K. has the highest industrial electricity rates, according to a basket of 28 major economies analyzed by the International Energy Agency. Italy isn’t far behind. Average electricity prices for heavy industries in the European Union remain roughly twice those in the U.S. and 50% above China. Energy prices have also grown more volatile as the share of renewables increased.
They have PILEDRIVEN their heavy industry. Ireland stopped all data center construction. That means not only are they not participating in the AI boom, they're not able to participate in the cloud economy because they lack the raw electricity.
“You can’t afford, in top global competition, to be ideologically driven in the way you decide the energy system,” said Ebba Busch, Sweden’s deputy prime minister and energy minister. Busch has criticized Germany for relying too heavily on solar and wind power, which means it sucks up energy from nearby countries on dull days, driving up prices.
“Without energy we have no industry, and without industry we have no defense,” she said.
Wow. Who knew that a key component of standing up to Putin was abundant energy? Seems I've read that somewhere before.
And the dummies also messed up the rollout:
Europe has pursued a different strategy in its green transition than any other region. The U.S., China, India, Brazil and others took an “and” strategy: They are aggressively rolling out renewables and simultaneously building fossil-fuel power plants on a grand scale.
Europe largely took an “or” strategy: It raced to replace fossil fuels with solar, wind and biomass by taxing carbon heavily, subsidizing renewables and closing scores of fossil-fuel power plants.
...
The effect was to cut back on a major source of energy before any other is fully up and running.
Whoops.
And of course the proles bear the burden of their elites' dumb plans:
Polls show half of British consumers are planning to ration energy use this winter as they struggle with wholesale electricity costs that are 80% higher than the U.S.
Dina Ingram, an office administrator in London, used to turn on the central heating in her four-room house for long stretches. Now in winter she can only afford to have it on for three hours a day. She doesn’t heat her bedroom at all.
Genius!
And did all their virtue signaling mean anything?
Worldwide, wood and coal are being burned in larger quantities than ever, thanks mostly to China.
No.
No. of Recommendations: 7
The newest stupid thing was carving out a highway in the middle of the Brazillian rainforest so that the rich people going to the climate conference can get there faster. You can't make these people up.You can make it up. But you didn't. Yes, neither end of the political spectrum is immune from stupidity. You cited an example (without a link, which I provide below).
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vy191rgn1oHowever, Europe's economy is doing fine (see links in my previous post).
Yes, energy prices are high in Europe, due to a multitude of factors. Laying the blame entirely on renewables is dishonest, or at least deliberately incomplete. One HUGE contributor is the reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Most of the EU is now boycotting Russian energy, which has a cost to them. An exception was carved out for Hungary (or the EU couldn't have boycotted Russian energy because Hungary would have vetoed). Guess whose energy costs are among the lowest in Europe? Hungary's. Nothing to do with renewables.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Back to the article, which the libs are (of course) dismissing without reading
PAYWALL, PAYWALL, PAYWALL,
PAYWALL, PAYWALL, PAYWALL,
PAYWALL, PAYWALL, PAYWALL,
PAYWALL, PAYWALL, PAYWALL,
PAYWALL, PAYWALL, PAYWALL,
PAYWALL, PAYWALL, PAYWALL,
No. of Recommendations: 3
However, Europe's economy is doing fine (see links in my previous post).
Europe's economy is far from "fine". Barely 1% growth sucks. As noted in the article:
-They can't build data centers
-They're paying 80% more for electricity than the US or China
-Residents are rationing power
-Businesses are shutting down due to a lack of electricity
That's not a rosy picture, at all.
Laying the blame entirely on renewables is dishonest, or at least deliberately incomplete.
Nope. Not even close as you're forgetting Net Zero *and* the unrealistic promises they made. Solar and wind are heavily dependent on location. They don't work in some places in the winter.
They deliberately shut off their old sources before they built out their "new" infrastructure. Nobody told Germany to idle several of their nuclear plants, for example. The "bbbut Russia" is a red herring.
Guess whose energy costs are among the lowest in Europe? Hungary's. Nothing to do with renewables.
Exactly. Because they never switched their economy over to unreliable sources of power.
No. of Recommendations: 9
I know of another country that is currently in the process of "wrecking itself"...
Individual bankruptcy filings in the U.S. have jumped 15% in the first 9 months of 2025.
"The sharp rise in individual bankruptcy filings compared to 2024 highlights the mounting financial pressure on households across the country."
"We expect this upward trend to continue, with a strong likelihood of accelerating into 2026."
"70% of Americans believe the economy is headed in the wrong direction, according to a new Fannie Mae survey."
"We've just witnessed: The Most October layoffs since 2003, Most Q4 layoffs since 2008, Most YTD layoffs since 2020, Least YTD hiring since 2011, Least holiday seasonal hiring since 2012."
"Wealth inequality in America is currently at historically high levels, the top 10% of U.S. families now control nearly 70% of total national wealth,
while the bottom half own just 3%."
And The National Debt Is Up A Staggering $1 Trillion in just two months!
But there is one family that has a spring in its step...
"Since he kicked off his campaign, Trump’s empire has landed billions of dollars of deals at home and abroad."
"No modern American president has positioned his family to make so much money while in the White House.
Already, since the early days of his reelection campaign, he’s more than doubled his net worth to about $5.4 billion."
"Family members have also scored an array of corporate positions — at least seven new roles as a corporate adviser or executive for his oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., alone."
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-trump-fami...https://www.axios.com/2025/11/06/layoffs-jobs-labo...
No. of Recommendations: 4
Does it make sense for Europe to close down fossil fuel plants while importing fossil fuel from Russia?
They may even still be doing it to some extent, not sure.
No, it doesn't make sense. At all.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Does it make sense for Europe to close down fossil fuel plants while importing fossil fuel from Russia?
They may even still be doing it to some extent, not sure.
No, it doesn't make sense. At all.
And during his last term, Trump went over there and told the Euros how dumb it was that they were buying oil and gas from Putin. liberals (many on this board) laughed at that.
Energy policy is the core to anyone's national strategy; the left does not, has not and never will understand that point.
No. of Recommendations: 5
"Wealth inequality in America is currently at historically high levels, the top 10% of U.S. families now control nearly 70% of total national wealth,
while the bottom half own just 3%."
And The National Debt Is Up A Staggering $1 Trillion in just two months!
These problems will not be fixed by the Republican Party. But the combination of a deeply corrupt political system and an uber wealthy oligarch class may make it impossible for any democracy-saving solution to be found.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Exactly. Because they never switched their economy over to unreliable sources of power.
In that they never switched from Russian energy, I agree. They didn't do anything. Though it isn't entirely reliable given that Russia is in a war, and pipelines and tankers are vulnerable.
As noted in more reliable articles (WSJ is a Murdoch rag), Europe's unemployment is low (and declining further), and their economy is growing ("modestly", as quoted in the more reliable articles). Your (WSJ) number is a tad low, but I won't quibble a decimal point (1.4%). "It sucks" is subjective. A "robust labour market" is a good thing. I doubt anything would be robust if the energy situation was as dire as the WSJ paints it.
And Russia is NOT a red herring. The EU was importing lots of Russian energy prior to 2022. The "greenies" were not getting their way. After 2022, the EU made a concerted effort to get off of Russian energy. It's quite well documented if you care to look for yourself. There are associated costs with that, and it was ahead of when the EU really wanted to do it. They had a phased plan, but that mostly went out the window when Putin attacked Ukraine.
Changing any infrastructure is going to be expensive. It was expensive to build pipelines and refineries when we did it. It will be expensive to build solar and wind and nuclear installations. China is being smart about it, planning for the future. It's costing them now, but they will have the power they need while other nations are scrambling to satisfy demand because fossil fuels are too expensive, or too hard to get, or both. Phasing renewables in now, before we desperately need it, is smart.
Nuclear is "green energy". A former head of Greenpeace even said so. Once a plant is built, there are zero emissions for decades. Germany's decisions were based on a valid concern about handling nuclear waste, the fear of a Chernobyl event (which couldn't happen in a water-moderated reactor, but most people don't know that), and a general anti-nuke sentiment (brought on by a couple of generations living under the fear of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War). And probably some other stuff I don't know about. I think it was a mistake, but I'm also certain the Green Party didn't make those decisions (a quick check shows they only got 12% of the vote, which is not enough to set policy).
No. of Recommendations: 4
liberals (many on this board) laughed at that.
Energy policy is the core to anyone's national strategy; the left does not, has not and never will understand that point.
Huh. Guess I'm not liberal or on the left, then. Assuming your statements are accurate.
No. of Recommendations: 2
These problems will not be fixed by the Republican Party.
Agreed. Since I was old enough to vote, the Reps have only made the deficit/debt worse. Very consistantly.
...may make it impossible for any democracy-saving solution to be found.
Let's make the math easy. Say 300M people, and a $30T debt. That's $100K per every man/woman/child in this country. I don't think that can be done. Start eliminating those people than don't have the means (which is probably 90%+ of the population), and you're looking at maybe 30M people shouldering most of that burden. Even fixing our tax system probably can't do it at this point.
Not a macro-economist, but I suspect we are headed to a default simply because no one can reasonably believe we can meet that debt obligation.
No. of Recommendations: 3
In that they never switched from Russian energy, I agree. They didn't do anything. Though it isn't entirely reliable given that Russia is in a war, and pipelines and tankers are vulnerable.They didn't do the Net Zero thing, and your statement of "unreliable" in this context isn't related to the energy
type under discussion. Hungary didn't slave themselves to wind and solar power, so they're not in the same boat as the rest of Europe.
As noted in more reliable articles (WSJ is a Murdoch rag),Poisoning the Well logical fallacy. You dislike the conclusions of the article so you dismiss it by invoking the Boogeyman. *And* you didn't cite any additional sources. Here, let's go get some:
https://www.staffingindustry.com/news/global-daily...The euro area’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate rose to 6.4% in October 2025, up from 6.3% in October 2024, while the EU unemployment rate was 6%, up from 5.8% in October 2024, according to Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union. Compare this with the US rate of 4.4%.
And even this is yet another red herring because the crux of the article is about the fate of Europe's heavy industries and their supply/pricing of electricity.
You're not even bothering to ack what the article says, which means you've made up your mind and there's no changing it, data be damned.
And Russia is NOT a red herring. The EU was importing lots of Russian energy prior to 2022. The "greenies" were not getting their way. After 2022, the EU made a concerted effort to get off of Russian energy. It's quite well documented if you care to look for yourself. There are associated costs with that, and it was ahead of when the EU really wanted to do it. They had a phased plan, but that mostly went out the window when Putin attacked Ukraine.Yes it is. The fact of the matter is that Germany turned off several of its nuke plants
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/18/germany-shuts-down...Oh, wait! Sorry, they shut them *all* down. In 2023. Meaning...they had no other source of power.
The "Greenies" not getting their way? Who do you think has been driving European energy policy for years? The Greenies.
They never had a "phased" plan.
That's the point. They turned off their old sources before they could replace the energy output, a really stupid mistake. Russia being Russia didn't force the Germans to turn off their nuke plants. That's the factoid that nukes your counterargument from orbit.
China is being smart about it, planning for the future. That's right, a future where they supply the cheap solar cells and all the rare earth deposits for magnets with the rest of the world a captive customer. Sheesh.
Germany's decisions were based on a valid concern about handling nuclear waste, the fear of a Chernobyl event (which couldn't happen in a water-moderated reactor, but most people don't know that),Chernobyl was a water cooled reactor that relied on pressurized water. German reactors are boiling water designs. They're fundamentally different. As in, completely. The accident at Chernobyl was based on their design principles (which German reactors don't follow).
the Green Party didn't make those decisions (a quick check shows they only got 12% of the vote, which is not enough to set policy).Sigh. That's not how parliamentary systems function. The Greens have been a part of governing coalition twice. And their energy policies are very similar to the Greens: all the way back in the
1980s the SD's wanted nukes gone.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Huh. Guess I'm not liberal or on the left, then. Assuming your statements are accurate.
Most folks on this board were howling about how "Merkel stood up to Trump!" Odds are (as in, >99%) that you joined in.
And yes...you're a lib.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Not a macro-economist, but I suspect we are headed to a default simply because no one can reasonably believe we can meet that debt obligation.
Sigh. You don't need to pay off the entire debt.
You do need to bring deficits under control so that your debt servicing doesn't kick off the death spiral of borrowing more money to pay off the interest on your loans.
And no. There's no solution in the current climate because the democrats refuse to acknowledge the problem. They won't touch entitlements, won't reform the system, nothing.
This board goes right along with it: All the DOGE efforts were met with howls.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Yes, energy prices are high in Europe, due to a multitude of factors. Laying the blame entirely on renewables is dishonest, or at least deliberately incomplete. One HUGE contributor is the reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Most of the EU is now boycotting Russian energy, which has a cost to them. An exception was carved out for Hungary (or the EU couldn't have boycotted Russian energy because Hungary would have vetoed). Guess whose energy costs are among the lowest in Europe? Hungary's. Nothing to do with renewables.
Germany has a good power grid but they need to get the power from the renewables to the user centers, they haven't done that - which may be due to reliance on Russian energy. Just like the rest of us, they appear to have been complacent.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Germany has a good power grid but they need to get the power from the renewables to the user centers, they haven't done that - which may be due to reliance on Russian energy. Just like the rest of us, they appear to have been complacent.
Yes. We have a tendency to do that. And then when something changes, we're "hair on fire" to adapt. China is being proactive, installing lots of alternative energy sources. They plan 10 or more years out. Our "quarterly report" mentality in the West largely prevents us from doing that.
No. of Recommendations: 2
...your statement of "unreliable" in this context isn't related to the energy type under discussion.
Fair enough. My point was that it isn't reliable if you're not sourcing it. If you have to import it, then you are dependent on external factors for it. Factors that often are beyond your control. If they had solar and wind farms, it wouldn't matter what Russia was doing. With the caveat that I have no idea if Hungary would be a good location for solar or wind.
You dislike the conclusions of the article so you dismiss it by invoking the Boogeyman. *And* you didn't cite any additional sources.
Not really. I found more reliable sources, and I linked them in a previous post. I'm a scientist (or I was). I'm not married to any conclusion. If the data support a different position, I change my mind. Whether I like the conclusion or not. I don't like the Hubble Tension, but there it is. So I have to accept it.
Chernobyl was a water cooled reactor that relied on pressurized water.
Yes. But it was a graphite moderated reactor. And that's where the problem arose. That, and them conducting a dangerous experiment to see if power could be provided to cooling pumps in the process of a shutdown (as I recall). The problem was that their moderator could catch fire, which it did. But I won't go too much more into nuclear power design. Every other reactor on the planet (except Hanford) is water-moderated. Can't catch fire. Though they can melt-down, but that's a different process.
That's not how parliamentary systems function. The Greens have been a part of governing coalition twice. And their energy policies are very similar to the Greens: all the way back in the 1980s the SD's wanted nukes gone.
Wow. Twice. In how many coalitions? And a minority voice in any coalition they were part of. Yes, I know how parliamentary systems work. Unlike other parties that consistently are part of ruling coalitions, the Greens have had very little power or influence. You have to achieve participation reasonably regularly to get your ideas put forth and maintained. Otherwise, the next coalition will just reverse you. Like the Felon and automobile mileage standards.
