The narrative of the motion picture Blade Runner opens on 1 November 2019 .
Newsweek observes that today is, in fact, known as "Blade Runner Day".
The Week notes: "So here we are in November 2019, and there are no flying cars, no Replicants, no human space colonies, and no futuristic giant office pyramids in Southern California."
What a bummer, man ! ! ! In the 50's they promised poor old DonDiego that flying cars were coming ! ! !
What went wrong ?
A flying car was indeed invented in the 60s, and made several successful flights. Unfortunately, it came apart in midair, killing its inventor.
Kevin, the implication years ago wasn't that there would be one, two, or a hundred flying cars. The implication was that there would be a widely used flying cars for the average Joe. The same people promised free renewable energy like wind a solar, but as California ramps up us "renewable" energy production, their electricy imports have skyrocked to nearly 40% of their consumption, and their free energy nows costs them 75% more than it did a decade ago. Some folks apparently have a differing description of free than I do.
The flying car and the renewable energy predictions are similarly accurate.
I think the people who predicited affordable, renwable energy had alot more insight than the people who predicted tax cuts for the rich would trickle down. And as for tax cuts paying for themselves? We didn't have to wait 20 years for the answer to that one did we?
As to the original post - there is some legitimate forshadowing from the movie. Rutger Hauer passed away in the year of the Blade Runner. His performance in that movie might only be eclipsed by his performance in this one:
PJ still refuses to understand that tax revenues have increased since the tax cuts. The problem is not revenue, but instead the cost of increasing free shit.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
PJ still refuses to understand that tax revenues have increased since the tax cuts. The problem is not revenue, but instead the cost of increasing free shit.
Tax revenues increased, but the deficit increased by $300 billion? Hmmm...
Republicans have always decried the so-called handouts that keep the unworthy races and lower classes from being miserable and dying. They are, however, greatly in favor of the handouts that make millionaires and bilionaires even richer, so they can afford gold-plated toilet seats and such.
I certainly agree that we could eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and free elementary and secondary schools; we could aboilish the FDA, the CDC, and the SEC; we could sell all the national parks; we could indeed get rid of all the "free shit." That would be a way to pay for Trump's tax cuts. I guess Boilerman would be in favor of that.
And yes, Boilerman, the problem IS revenue when corporate taxes are cut in half. It's immensely stupid to contend anything else. Republicans have advocated massive cuts in social programs to make up for those lost revenues.
What Boilerman and Republicans fail to understand is that destroying all social programs--a wet dream of theirs--would ultimately cost MUCH more than the programs themselves. But that's kind of an advanced concept, and certainly difficult for Trumpers to understand.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Kevin, the implication years ago wasn't that there would be one, two, or a hundred flying cars. The implication was that there would be a widely used flying cars for the average Joe. The same people promised free renewable energy like wind a solar, but as California ramps up us "renewable" energy production, their electricy imports have skyrocked to nearly 40% of their consumption, and their free energy nows costs them 75% more than it did a decade ago. Some folks apparently have a differing description of free than I do.
The flying car and the renewable energy predictions are similarly accurate.
Very few people said that the flying car would become common or that it was even feasible on a large scale.
However, renewable energy IS feasible and IS already being implemented on a large scale. I don't know where you're getting your California stats--probably from some alt-right website--but it's indisputable that once you build solar and wind generating facilities, your only costs are periodic maintenance. No one ever said renewable energy was "free"--just that it costs less than fossil fuel energy.
And that calculation doesn't even take into account the costs of pollution from burning fossil fuels--those costs are substantial. So even if wind and solar cost more upfront, they ultimately cost less.
I don't understand why this should even be a political issue. Fossil fuel companies bribe Republicans to lie about renewable energy, and Trumpers dutifully parrot the party line. Isn't it pretty stupid to rely on an energy source that is rapidly being depleted, generates substantial pollution, and is more expensive than renewable energy? Why dig holes in the ground to find stuff to burn when you can just build solar panels and wind turbines? (And let's not hear any more of that "there's no land" crap--we've already blown up that argument.)
