What Republicans do

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-31-2017, 10:33 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-26-2017, 02:58 PM)Galen Wrote: As I have explained in the past the Social Security Trust Fund consists of non-negotiable Treasury bonds which are now called "special issues" treasury debt.  In other words the trust fund is one big IOU and the money has already been spent.  This is just one aspect of what Gary North calls the Great Default which means the promises will not be kept.

The SS Trust Fund is actually an accounting tool that tracks the advanced payments made by future retirees, but it still carries the full faith and credit of all US debt.  The only way that changes: the GOP fiscal zealots manage to stop an increase in the debt ceiling.  Otherwise, no.

Remember, we've carried a lot higher debt relative to the size of our economy in the past, but was temporary.  Note:  all the debt from WWII is still on the books.

If the bulk of the World War II debt was gone around 1980, how is it that "all the debt from World War II is still on the books"? The debt took off again just as the unraveling memes kicked in -- trickle down, borrow and spend, stronger military, the government is the problem. I'm more inclined to say the unraveling memes are factors in the modern debt rather than World War II restarting.

Seems to me you are double-thinking badly in an attempt to falsely sell a talking point.

[Eric the Green]

The desire for lower taxes has become a prime force of the Republican Party that now controls our state. This creates a larger debt than in the past. They also claim to lower spending too, but in practice merely shift from domestic spending to borrowing for war and defense. The 3T mentality is being extended into the 4T, and the resulting debt may be heightened if war comes during the 4T. So the debt is lasting longer than before, since libertarian economics (lower taxes) is being mixed with militarism.

[David Horn]

(05-31-2017, 11:18 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: If the bulk of the World War II debt was gone around 1980, how is it that "all the debt from World War II is still on the books"?  The debt took off again just as the unraveling memes kicked in -- trickle down, borrow and spend, stronger military, the government is the problem.  I'm more inclined to say the unraveling memes are factors in the modern debt rather than World War II restarting.

Seems to me you are double-thinking badly in an attempt to falsely sell a talking point.

No, the actual debt rose the entire time.  Bonds are redeemed, and new ones are issued.  What changed was the size of the economy, because growth, for whatever reason, and inflation, for less desirous ones, makes the GNP/GDP grow every year ... unless we have a crash.

[Galen]

(05-31-2017, 02:31 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-31-2017, 11:18 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: If the bulk of the World War II debt was gone around 1980, how is it that "all the debt from World War II is still on the books"?  The debt took off again just as the unraveling memes kicked in -- trickle down, borrow and spend, stronger military, the government is the problem.  I'm more inclined to say the unraveling memes are factors in the modern debt rather than World War II restarting.

Seems to me you are double-thinking badly in an attempt to falsely sell a talking point.

No, the actual debt rose the entire time.  Bonds are redeemed, and new ones are issued.  What changed was the size of the economy, because growth, for whatever reason, and inflation, for less desirous ones, makes the GNP/GDP grow every year ... unless we have a crash.

Exactly right.  The federal government has been living beyond its means for a very long time and this will not continue indefinitely.  There will come a time when confidence that the debt can be paid and then everyone will bail out of Treasuries.  If it wasn't for the petrodollar this would have happened long ago.

[Eric the Green]

The danger of the federal debt will increase when interest rates increase. It will be more expensive then to keep and service the debt.

Perhaps the corresponding improvement in the economy could cushion the blow, since interest rates go up if the economy is stronger. If a progressive government returns, taxes will go up then too, which would help the debt and deficit too. Of course, no doubt government spending could increase too, in that case.

Neither Party now dominant is really committed to reducing the debt, although our current Party system could change. But I suspect the national debt will be huge for the remainder of the existence of the USA; however long that is. And large growth in the GNP may be unlikely in the future too, due to population declines and resource limits that are likely. If we go progressive again, though, innovation could increase, and better wealth distribution will help overall prosperity.

[Galen]

(05-31-2017, 06:50 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: Neither Party now dominant is really committed to reducing the debt, although our current Party system could change. But I suspect the national debt will be huge for the remainder of the existence of the USA; however long that is. And large growth in the GNP may be unlikely in the future too, due to population declines and resource limits that are likely. If we go progressive again, though, innovation could increase, and better wealth distribution will help overall prosperity.

As usual your knowledge of history is as faulty as your understanding of economics.  One of the biggest signs that your empire is going down is ever increasing debt and monetary debasement.  The US has been doing this since at least 1971 but some would argue since 1913.   Another good sign that your empire is going down is a never ending string of wars.  Here are a couple of graphs to illustrate my point.



Now for the dollar.



You will no doubt entirely miss the point as usual.

[David Horn]

(06-01-2017, 03:52 AM)Galen Wrote: You will no doubt entirely miss the point as usual.

In a world unrestricted by hard money, growth can occur at very high rates.  Since population and per capita growth would literally push the value of gold or silver so high that only a fraction of commerce could be supported, why is that a good idea?

Valuing things using something you dig out of the ground is archaic.  It's a blast from the past that should remain there.

[pbrower2a]

Gold is not 'the money', the basis of prosperity. Reputedly a quarter of the world's gold is in India, a poor country. It's basically the personal savings of people who do not fully trust banks, central to avoid inflation, or retail to avoid fleecing people. Much of it is in women's jewelry, a hedge against widowhood or being cast off by a husband.

Commodity production, whether steel, wheat, or kilowatts of electrical power, is the real wealth. Gold is valuable because it is rare, easy to distinguish from anything else, and hard to fake. Yes, gold has skyrocketed against the dollar, but by much more than have commodity prices. In real terms, petroleum is cheap in contrast to what it was around 1980. The only thing that has approached the appreciation of gold has been prime real estate as in New York, Boston, and San Francisco, and that due to population growth. Of course, there's plenty of cheap real estate in such places as Detroit, Flint, Gary, Youngstown, St. Louis.... Try making a living in such places.

Gold would be a poor medium of exchange now due to its high cost per unit for commodities. At 0.76 ounces per 1000 dollars, it would take 0.00152 ounces of gold to pay for a $2 hamburger at a fast-food place.

Should the economy get bad at producing such basic commodities as metals, wheat, petroleum, or electrical power, then cash will be worthless. The coin of the realm is worth what one can buy with it, which explains why dollars are worthless if they have the word "Zimbabwe" on them.

[Eric the Green]

Nothing is more dangerous today than the libertarian economics credos that people like Galen have been pushing these last 40 years. I think it's the main reason people vote Republican, although the religious right and fear of foreigners aspects are also major factors. When the people vote Republican, the government cannot act to protect the people from the misdeeds of big business, and it cannot provide leadership on national priorities. Corruption and incompetence are rewarded, because the only priority is lower taxes and upholding the myths of self-reliance and less government. Because these ideas are so attractive, this libertarian-economics ideology is the most dangerous. Who wants to be in favor of "big government" that "uses force" to "steal my money to create dependency?" And yet it's really the big bosses who keep our society poor and stagnant for most people, our environment and climate polluted, and our politics corrupted. Ethnic groups are scapegoated and blamed for high taxes and regulations and for all our problems. A government run by liberals and prodded by the people is not our only safeguard of a prosperous, rewarding and safe society, but without it we are left at the mercy of the wolves and brigands.

[Galen]

(06-01-2017, 12:20 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: Nothing is more dangerous today than the libertarian economics credos that people like Galen have been pushing these last 40 years.

If libertarians were setting the economic policy of the US then government would be much smaller than it is.  Indeed government debt would be decreasing along with its spending. 

Thank you again for demonstrating how little contact with reality you have.

[Eric the Green]

If pure libertarians were in total charge, no doubt spending and debt would decrease, at least initially. Those are not the only desirable priorities in our public life. The question is, what is public money spent on? Who pays it?

Our country's policies have been largely libertarian in the emphasis on tax cuts, deregulation, and touting self-reliance as an alternative to government. In practice, since the Republican Party is the vehicle for libertarianism, not the Libertarian Party, in actually-elected offices, our policies have also included continuous, expensive wars, subsidies to outdated industries, expensive drug wars and prisons, religious right nostrums like censorship and abortion restrictions, etc.

If the Libertarian Party gained power, libertarian economics would be pushed further. The lack of USA wars might be a benefit, except that foreign terrorists and dictators would have a freer hand, and alliances crippled, with costs to America to be determined. Taxes and debt would decrease, but real costs to the people would rise dramatically. Business would be allowed to pollute as much as it wants, which would result in increased costs for natural disasters like floods and fire as well as contamination of water and air and the resulting health costs. Wages would decline, unemployment rise and poverty mushroom due to business being allowed to pay workers little and impose poor working conditions, as well as continue to fire workers and hire machines and foreigners instead with no safety net for the victims of these firings. Education would be restricted to those who can afford it, which would increase the lack of skilled employees available to business, as well as inability for people to rise economically. No social programs leaves all ability to deal with social problems to the local police, which would increase addiction and crime markedly. The result would be a society opposite to libertarians' claims of freedom, but instead a police state where shooting people is the remedy for social and racial problems instead of social workers. Economic crashes would be frequent and severe because of the allowed rampant speculation and abuse of peoples' investments. This would further increase poverty, especially among non-whites.

[pbrower2a]

Quote:Rep. Tim Walberg, Republican from Michigan, reassured constituents last week there was no reason for panic over global climate change because a divine power will take care of it for humans, the Huffington Post reported on Wednesday.

"I believe there’s climate change," Walberg said in a recording of the May 26, 2017 appearance in Coldwater, Michigan. "I believe there’s been climate change since the beginning of time. I believe there are cycles. Do I think man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No.”

"Why do I believe that?" he continued. "Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I’m confident that, if there’s a real problem, he can take care of it."

[quote from a poster in Leip's Election Atlas]

We are being governed by people who are either dumb as a box of rocks or completely corrupted by special interest money. It's probably a fair mix of both. But to claim that somehow a god, that quite likely doesn't even exist, controls the climate and will take care of whatever abuses we throw at it, despite the consensus within the scientific community on this subject, is beyond absurd. Why don't these ignorant, selfish old fools just go away and quit ruining the planet for everyone else?
[/quote]







From someone unfortunate enough to have him as a Congressional Representative -- you are right on both counts. This is someone that I would not want teaching in K-12 school because of his stubborn ignorance... and he has never found a well-heeled special interest that he hasn't sold out to once he got money from them.

I do not believe that God exists to rescue us of every stupidity. Maybe I can accept that there is a God because the universe makes some sense... but He does not give us the prerogative of stepping off a cliff, teasing a rattlesnake, confronting a pack of Rottweilers (four of those 80-pound dogs might as well be one 320-pound tiger), or drinking sulfuric acid. Global warming may not be so much a problem to a 68-year-old man who lives on comparatively high ground (physically if not intellectually), but to some peasant farmer in Bangladesh global warming might be murder by inundation of his field. Neither does He exist to exculpate us of crimes.

Or maybe less hysterically, manslaughter.

If you remember the "Had enough?" ads of 2006 in which incumbent Republicans are skewered for 'mud-flinging' and 'corruption' as well as being rubber-stamps for Dubya... one of those would well fit Representative Walberg.



Have you had enough
of demagouery?
Have you had enough
of the hypocrisy?
Does it make you want to scream and shout?
(Yes, it does! Yes, it does!)  

Have you had enough
of the ignorance?
Have you had enough
of incompetence?
Have you had enough
Then vote Tim Walberg out!

Have you had enough
of the rubber stamp?
Have you had enough
of bein' played a sap?
Have you had enough?
Then vote Tim Walberg out!

Have you had enough
of the rubber stamp?
Have you had enough
of bein' played a sap?
Have you had enough?
Then vote Tim Walberg out!

You know we've let him hold a seat too long/
He's gotten all the answers wrong!
No plan, no shame, no oversight/
Now's the time to put it right!

Have you had enough
because they're all corrupt?
Have you had enough
of being divvied up?
If you've had enough
then it's time to vote Walberg out!

Well, do what's right and spread the word
It's time to make our voices heard
You cast your vote/
it don't cost a dime!
Sitting it out will be a crime!
Well. I've had enough
It's time to vote Walberg out!

[Eric the Green]

Yes, that's right X_84, and Brower.

There is God, but that's because God lives within every being, and beyond. God is not a big Daddy who can take care of everything that we leave for Him to do. Life takes care of life, and humans take care of things when they are willing to do so. Republicans are not willing. Libertarians are not willing.

[pbrower2a]

Now here is something ominous -- no further comments by me in this post.  

How do we hold bombastic leaders accountable for violence done in their name? It’s a question with increasing relevance as right-wing populism rises around the globe.

Matthew Heimbach, a white supremacist, has been charged with assaulting protesters at Donald Trump campaign rally in the fall of 2016, claimed he was only trying to defend Trump’s constitutional rights — and answering the presidential candidate’s command to “get them [protesters] out of here!”


Heimbach insisted he’s not responsible for the assault, but that if he were, it’s only because he “relied on Trump’s authority to order disruptive persons removed and that Trump was legally within his rights to ask other attendees to assist in defending their constitutional rights against ‘protesters’ who were disrupting.”

In simpler terms, Trump was within his rights to order protesters out of his rally and therefore his supporters were within their rights to try and force those protesters out. Heimbach’s lawyers’ legal strategy is twofold — to both deny the assault, and to simultaneously justify the violence by investing it with someone else’s authority.

Meanwhile, a Philippine lawyer named Jude Sabio has filed a lawsuit against Pres. Rodrigo Duterte for mass murder over the course of three decades. It alleges that Duterte and 11 other officials are responsible for thousands of extrajudicial killings committed against people they deemed to be drug dealers. While Duterte was mayor of Davao City in Mindanao, he vocally supported a notorious local death squad.

The killings are part of The Philippines’ bloody war on drugs. Human Rights Watch reported that 6,000 people, mainly slum dwellers, have died in the war. 2,250 were killed by police. Another 3,600 were killed by “unidentified gunmen.” Some of the victims were as young as 14.
Duterte ran as a law-and-order candidate, pledging to eradicate drug crime in The Philippines. His plan centers on vilifying drug dealers and drug users and openly advocating their murder. Before taking office, Duterte encouraged members of the public to feel free to kill “criminals.”

.......

In place of Duterte’s long list of alleged drug dealers, America now has VOICE — the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement Office. Among other things, the office aims to publish lists of crimes committed by immigrants, particularly undocumented ones.
It’s part of the Trump administration’s larger effort, guided by advisor Steve Bannon, to paint all immigrants as inherently criminal, dangerous and undesirable — and as threats to American values and security.

Duterte has explicitly labeled drug dealers and users as legitimate targets of violence, arguing that killing them makes his country safer. This essentially casts violence against these people as an expression of patriotism. Trump did the same for admittedly less-lethal violence against protesters at his rallies. And his administration has made clear that certain people, particularly immigrants and Muslims, do not belong in his America.

If you are committed to the idea of “making America great again,” and you recall your president’s boisterous advocacy of violence against protesters, what will you think is the patriotic way to respond to the undesirables allegedly invading your country?

The individual people who carry out the killings in The Philippines and the assaults in the United States are, of course, responsible for their own actions and should face justice. But given the surge in violence in both countries that has accompanied the rise of our outspoken presidents, it’s important to consider how these heads of state enable and encourage this kind of non-state violence.

Culpability is clear in cases where, for instance, Duterte has allegedly given direct orders to police to  kill someone. That’s an illegal order, and both the person giving it and the person following it are guilty.

....................

Incitement is a crime in both U.S. domestic and international law. But in the United States, incitement has tended to be narrowly construed. It has to be directly tied to the actual act of violence, and has most often been leveled against activist groups and labor unions advocating revolutionary political change, not against major party candidates … and certainly not the president.
Likewise, it’s difficult to say definitely that any of Trump’s statements are what would legally constitute a true threat and not just hyperbole.

Incitement in international law tends to imply on incitement to genocide. That makes sense insofar as a lot of our current international law emerged in the aftermath of World War II.

However, as right-wing populism rises around the globe and leaders such as Trump and Duterte become ever more common, it seems increasingly important to wrestle with these questions, to determine where accountability lies for the increasing violence we suffer in our societies — and to seek justice.


The question of accountability gets muddier when politicians say inflammatory things in public speeches that may inspire individuals to commit crimes.

http://warisboring.com/when-your-preside...-violence/

[pbrower2a]

Some comments from me:

1. As about everyone knows, I hate drugs. As I rarely find the need to make clear, I hate lynchings even more.  

2. Political violence has no justification. We elect our pols even if we end up with Donald Trump and others that I need not mention.

3. Political violence tends to build upon itself. It reinforces the feelings of those who do it and causes those who fear it to cower as it gets closer to them. It is a powerful tool for malign leaders, and it is characteristic of totalitarian causes and regimes. A decent society represses it quickly lest it fester into terror by outsiders or repression by the rulers.

4. Crimes by illegal immigrants? They can be dealt with with imprisonment and deportation. But this said, illegal immigration is not the problem.

5. The way to deal with whatever seems to be a social menace is the rule of law. No crime, no consequences.

6. The Nazi Julius Streicher published a vile rag, Der Stürmer , whose specialty was stories of Jewish plots against the German people in particular and the rest of humanity in general, including the infamous  blood libel that alleged that Jews killed gentile children for use of their blood in religious rituals. (Never mind that blood of any kindis a violation of kosher food laws and that murder is an abomination in Jewish religion.



This pornographer of hatred created a climate in which anything could be done by a German against any Jew. Yes, Der Stürmer existed in the context of a totalitarian state in which nothing contrary to the political leadership could be done. The Nazi state gave the Jews no chance to rebut the calumnies against them. But tyranny rarely emerges whole and instantly. Even Hitler had to impose his sick dream incrementally. Even if Donald Trump is not Hitler and the Republican Party is not the Nazi Party, we Americans are experiencing a steady erosion of civil liberties and rule of law. There is no rationale for this erosion of fundamental decencies of American life.

Julius Streicher did not enjoy a comfortable retirement.  He was arrested by the Allies, put on trial in the main Nuremberg Tribunal in which he was convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death by hanging, the sentence being carried out.

[David Horn]

(06-01-2017, 02:26 PM)Galen Wrote: If libertarians were setting the economic policy of the US then government would be much smaller than it is.  Indeed government debt would be decreasing along with its spending. 

Thank you again for demonstrating how little contact with reality you have.

Your first sentence does not lead to your second.  Yes, libertarians will shrink government, as Trump is trying to do right now.  But don't assume that this will lead to positive results in the general economy.  Kansas stands in stark contrast to your conclusions, and California show how well the opposite policy works.  Where are your examples?  Please, keep them relatively current.  Times change and old ideas die with the times.

[Odin]

(06-01-2017, 03:52 AM)Galen Wrote:

(05-31-2017, 06:50 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: Neither Party now dominant is really committed to reducing the debt, although our current Party system could change. But I suspect the national debt will be huge for the remainder of the existence of the USA; however long that is. And large growth in the GNP may be unlikely in the future too, due to population declines and resource limits that are likely. If we go progressive again, though, innovation could increase, and better wealth distribution will help overall prosperity.

As usual your knowledge of history is as faulty as your understanding of economics.  One of the biggest signs that your empire is going down is ever increasing debt and monetary debasement.  The US has been doing this since at least 1971 but some would argue since 1913.   Another good sign that your empire is going down is a never ending string of wars.  Here are a couple of graphs to illustrate my point.



Now for the dollar.



You will no doubt entirely miss the point as usual.

That you think precious metals are still somehow relevant to the monetary system you are both showing your ignorance AND that one-track mind of yours.

[pbrower2a]

(06-02-2017, 05:56 PM)Odin Wrote:

(06-01-2017, 03:52 AM)Galen Wrote:

(05-31-2017, 06:50 PM)Eric the (insult redacted) Wrote: Neither Party now dominant is really committed to reducing the debt, although our current Party system could change. But I suspect the national debt will be huge for the remainder of the existence of the USA; however long that is. And large growth in the GNP may be unlikely in the future too, due to population declines and resource limits that are likely. If we go progressive again, though, innovation could increase, and better wealth distribution will help overall prosperity.

As usual your knowledge of history is as faulty as your understanding of economics.  One of the biggest signs that your empire is going down is ever increasing debt and monetary debasement.  The US has been doing this since at least 1971 but some would argue since 1913.   Another good sign that your empire is going down is a never ending string of wars. 

Now for the dollar.



You will no doubt entirely miss the point as usual.

That you think precious metals are still somehow relevant to the monetary system you are both showing your ignorance AND that one-track mind of yours.

Gold is simply scarce and desirable. It was once easy to extract, but now it is extractable only with dangerous substances including mercury and cyanide. Gold mining is an ecological disaster, and it is best that people put their efforts into doing something more likely to be of obvious use than extracting gold from low-grade sources.

Yes, gold would be used for many banal objects if it were commonplace due to its excellent conductivity of heat and electricity, its low toxicity, and its extreme resistance to corrosion and other chemical attacks.

For a real contrast in the direction of the price of the metal, just look at aluminum. As late as 1859 honored guests of Emperor Napoleon III of France got to dine with aluminum utensils  while less honored guests would have to settle for gold utensils. Today it is one of the cheapest of metals despite its utility.

[Galen]

(06-02-2017, 10:38 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-02-2017, 05:56 PM)Odin Wrote:

(06-01-2017, 03:52 AM)Galen Wrote:

(05-31-2017, 06:50 PM)Eric the Obtuse (accurate description restored) Wrote: Neither Party now dominant is really committed to reducing the debt, although our current Party system could change. But I suspect the national debt will be huge for the remainder of the existence of the USA; however long that is. And large growth in the GNP may be unlikely in the future too, due to population declines and resource limits that are likely. If we go progressive again, though, innovation could increase, and better wealth distribution will help overall prosperity.

As usual your knowledge of history is as faulty as your understanding of economics.  One of the biggest signs that your empire is going down is ever increasing debt and monetary debasement.  The US has been doing this since at least 1971 but some would argue since 1913.   Another good sign that your empire is going down is a never ending string of wars. 

Now for the dollar.

You will no doubt entirely miss the point as usual.

That you think precious metals are still somehow relevant to the monetary system you are both showing your ignorance AND that one-track mind of yours.

Gold is simply scarce and desirable.

This is one of the reasons it is a good medium of exchange.  Gold does have many industrial uses but not as many as silver does.  Both have been used as money for thousands of years and without legal tender laws and government force they probably will be again.

As usual the two of you completely miss the point.  Empires that are on the decline tend to have huge debt loads and they deliberately debase their currency in order to help cover the bills.  It looks like the US is going the way of every other empire and you, like most of the citizens of those prior empires, are completely clueless about what his happening around you.

[pbrower2a]

(06-03-2017, 12:40 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-02-2017, 10:38 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-02-2017, 05:56 PM)Odin Wrote:

(06-01-2017, 03:52 AM)Galen Wrote:

(05-31-2017, 06:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Neither Party now dominant is really committed to reducing the debt, although our current Party system could change. But I suspect the national debt will be huge for the remainder of the existence of the USA; however long that is. And large growth in the GNP may be unlikely in the future too, due to population declines and resource limits that are likely. If we go progressive again, though, innovation could increase, and better wealth distribution will help overall prosperity.

As usual your knowledge of history is as faulty as your understanding of economics.  One of the biggest signs that your empire is going down is ever increasing debt and monetary debasement.  The US has been doing this since at least 1971 but some would argue since 1913.   Another good sign that your empire is going down is a never ending string of wars. 

Now for the dollar.

You will no doubt entirely miss the point as usual.

That you think precious metals are still somehow relevant to the monetary system you are both showing your ignorance AND that one-track mind of yours.

Gold is simply scarce and desirable.

This is one of the reasons it is a good medium of exchange.  Gold does have many industrial uses but not as many as silver does.  Both have been used as money for thousands of years and without legal tender laws and government force they probably will be again.

As usual the two of you completely miss the point.  Empires that are on the decline tend to have huge debt loads and they deliberately debase their currency in order to help cover the bills.  It looks like the US is going the way of every other empire and you, like most of the citizens of those prior empires, are completely clueless about what his happening around you.

A gold standard would require a hyper-deflation that would result in a depression as severe as that of the Great Depression. But gold is so expensive ($1276 per ounce) that it would be unsuitable for many transactions. Gold has been as expensive as $1889 an ounce in 2011 and as inexpensive as $252 in 2000.



I have other ideas of what could stand as commodities of exchange. Maybe a kilowatt-hour of electrical energy would make more sense even if it isn't really portable.