placeholder

Do they explode when solar plants are built? Or when wind turbine arrays are built? And nuclear plants are pretty much historically the worst. "The graphic below is from Flyvbjerg’s upcoming book, co-authored with Dan Gardner, How Big Things Get Done: The Surprising Factors That Determine the Fate of Every Project, from Home Renovations to Space Exploration and Everything In Between (strongly recommended for energy developers, institutional investors and policy makers). It’s assembled from the 16,000 projects Flyvbjerg and his team have gathered into their dataset of megaprojects. The black vertical line is the dividing line between projects that typically are delivered on time and budget vs those that typically aren’t, with the extremes showing which projects are best (solar and wind generation construction) and worst (all things nuclear and Olympics)." https://cleantechnica.com/2023/01/18/the-nuclear-fallacy-why-small-modular-reactors-cant-compete-with-renewable-energy/#:~:text=“Small modular reactors won't,to decommission%2C and still require

No it didn't. You claimed that the UK performed well in 2021 and 2022 and you cited growth in GDP to prove it.. But this opening sentence shows that you didn't take into account the UK's steep fall in 2020. As the opening sentence of the article notes "Britain will still be the worst-performing large economy in the world this year, even after a significant upgrade in its forecasts, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF)." Even if that prediction turns out not to be true, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's wrong, that has nothing to do with your claim for 2021 and 2022. That's shown by the fact that the article says "Britain will still be etc."

The prediction is irrelevant here. The key words are "To Remain". That points to the past which was what your claim was about. Namely that the UK had a sharp rise in growth in 2021. Yes, the UK had a big bounce back up. But that's what's called a statistical artefact. Its bounce was bigger because it's fall was bigger. That's explains why it could have a bigger bounce and still perform worse than other G7 Countries. I do agree that the IMF has a dismal record in predictions and should be ignored in that regard. But that's not the issue that you raised in the post I commented on.

And yet, out of all the G7 economies it performed the worst through 2022. This is from the Marxists at The Telegraph: Britain to remain world’s worst-performing large economy in 2023 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/11/imf-gives-british-economic-forecasts-biggest-upgrade-in-g7/

No, they're obviously much worse which Lula and others like him conveniently ignore. But the fact is that his personal history provides him with real grounds to resent the USA. The US supported an 1964 coup that installed the military in power for 21 years.

I cited a source with links. If you think it's not credible report it to the mods. Or you can provide your own link to a credible source. I'm certainly not going to take your word for it. From the landing page of the World News Forum Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source.

You can try to deflect attention to that billionaire all you like. It's clear that Clarence Thomas violated the law. There's nothing equivocal about that. The only time he wouldn't be required to report the sale is if that home was his primary residence. A clear violation. He's a Supreme Court Justice. He's supposed to set an example. Clearly he's not a real honest guy. I love that moment in the documentary when he claims to prefer spending his vacation time in a Walmart parking lot with RV owners. He's not an honest person.

It's not incumbent upon to back up your claims.

Where did I question that small entrepreneurs don't work harder than most?

No. I challenged your claim that recessions act mainly on mom and pop stores and not on workers.

Which claim(s) would you like me to back up?

That was about the great recession in the USA. Were banks in the UK unwilling to make loans recently? Didn't the UK in fact have a program backing banks to make small loans?

There are plenty of forums where that is appropriate and makes sense. Not this one. First you've performed a mindreading act about me. First as: "You only believe what you want to believe" "You, and a couple of other posters on here, never believe personal experiences, if they go against your own agenda." I would strongly advise you not to pursue a career as a mentalist.

Somebody needs a little reminder. From the landing page of the World News Forum "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source." You have a problem with my linking to "approved credible sources" to back up my factual claims?

Maybe you should publish your findings in The Journal of Because I Say So.

What's really impressive is how Fox has taken a principled stand in covering the news of the trial: by ignoring it and not even acknowledging that they are ignoring it.

"You seem to be worried about money that Finland has plenty of. I would also suggest that Finland knows exactly what it is doing." I criticized the project on account of its cost overruns and delays. You reply with the fact that Finland has lots of money. Why did you invoke that fact if not to counter my observation that it ran almost 4 times over budget. As for Finland knowing what it was doing, given that it hired a company that screwed up disastrously, you have evidence to support that? Given that their court case shows they unhappy with their choice? You've still got nothing.

I am confident that to your way of thing there is some sort of logical connection between the first part of that sentence and the rest of it. I am also confident that you will make no effort to explain it but instead come up with some sort of lame wisecrack or not reply at all. Here's what you wrote: "You seem to be worried about money that Finland has plenty of. I would also suggest that Finland knows exactly what it is doing. Don't worry yourself, the Fin's are alright." And yes, the Finns made their own decisions. Including canceling a plant that was going to be built and suing the people who made the 3rd one.

When someone is caught out, a common and sad ploy is try and make it personal. You've got nothing.

I think a reasonable person might want to fact check how the Finns actually felt about the massive cost overruns and delays before making such a contrary-to-common-sense statement. Finland's TVO raises claim against Areva over nuclear reactor delays Finnish utility Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) on Monday said it has raised its claim against the Areva-Siemens consortium to 2.6 billion euros ($2.9 billion) from a previous 2.3 billion euros over delays in its Olkiluoto-3 nuclear reactor. The International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC) arbitration court is currently processing a dispute on cost overruns between the utility and the reactor supplier.... TVO recently scrapped plans for a fourth reactor at Olkiluoto due to current delays at the site. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-olkiluoto/finlands-tvo-raises-claim-against-areva-over-nuclear-reactor-delays-idUSKCN0Q817K20150803 I can just see how you would have written the headline: Finnis so happy with 3rd nuclear plant costs & delays they cancel the 4th!!!

You're the one who dismissed the issue with a statement to the effect that they have always been with us. You might as well have said nothing on that score. Your answer tells us nothing about how much of a problem it currently is.

"Nuclear reactor Olkiluoto 3 has gone online in Finland some 12 years behind schedule and on a massively inflated budget. The cost ballooned from an initial estimate of €3 billion ($3.27 billion) to around €11 billion, according to the 2019 World Nuclear Industry Report." https://www.dw.com/en/finlands-much-delayed-nuclear-plant-launches/a-61108015 This is cause for celebration?

Yes homeless people have existed since forever. The question is has the percentage increased, decreased, or stayed the same. If increased, by how much? The same goes for hunger. Has the percentage of people lacking the means to access adequate nutrition declined, stayed the same or increased. If increased, significantly so?

Untrue. You make a lot of assumptions there. The chief one being what their net earnings were before and what they were after. Just because they may be netting less, doesn't mean that they aren't netting enough. As I supected, you've got nothing to back up your claimi.

You're the person who claimed that it proved he was a "vegetable". Nothing in that interview that you saw established that. All you have to offer is your surmises. We do have the word of the chief neurologist at Walter Reed Hospital that what you claim is not the case. It's not easy to choose between the assessment of an anonymous member of aseannow.com and that of a distinguished neurologist. I'm gonna go crazy and side with him.