1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Observations From The Weekend

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Greco, Dec 8, 2008.

  1. Greco

    Greco New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Over the weekend, after viewing a volume of news programs and interviews on all the major broadcast and cable networks, there are two observations that surfaced.

    On program after program, journalists rolled out a dazzling array of “experts” to offer up their analysis on the economic mess, the automotive meltdown, mortgage foreclosures, and Bush’s newfound ability to recognize reality with this admission we’re in a recession and have been for over a year. Opinions flowed like the Mississippi River in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans during Katrina. Every broadcast had a cast of “experts”, and none came without a series of detailed points to offer.

    The question occurred to me as I became dazed from the volume of thoughts expressed, where were all these “experts” when it counted the most? Where were they when their free flowing opinions might have headed off these policy-created, horrific problems?
    If they knew then, what they claim to know now, why weren’t sirens wailing and alarm bells clanging?

    Then there was the noticeable absence of virtually all the high profile Republicans. As President-elect Obama continues to prepare his new administration to fix these problems, and daily advances the selection of key members of his team, Republicans that were quick to issue doom and gloom predictions during the campaign about his “lack of leadership experience”, are strangely silent now. It appears they’re now stunned by his display of leadership during the transition, and have decided to just get out of the way so his new administration can undo the damage.
     
  2. Sihouette

    Sihouette Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It's very simple. You investigate BigOil's culpability with respect to the illegal war for their oil interests in Iraq, lying to Congress, theft of the Treasury and Armory. Then when you've got the goods on them, you try them, find them guilty and fine the crap out of them over a period of a decade or so.

    In other words, think of BigOil like a lying, cheating ex-spouse that owes child support and restitution to his wife for abusing her. Let's say that guy is working at a gravy job, making a killing and not only isn't giving her a dime, but is instead entering her house at night and robbing her larder of what little mac and cheese she has to feed her kids...all the while laughing and going to the bank.

    OK, now we just insert BigOil into that description, and garnish their wages (record profits) until such time that the Law deems restitution has been satisfied.

    When there's a problem, I may be unconventional in saying you should go to its source.:cool:
     
  3. Pidgey

    Pidgey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Sorry, you're reading it wrong. Nobody's going to be able to "fix these problems" because their basis is in something that is beyond our control. Oh, sure... there's corruption in "high places" but you're fooling yourself if you think that's only occurred these last eight years or is something that has come to an end with Obama's election. You'd be better served to learn to understand this:

    http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Archives2008/KunstlerDecember08PeopleGetReady.html
     
  4. Greco

    Greco New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Perhaps someone that is writing for an organization called "Cluster**** Nation" may be a little less than the best source for advise. You'd be better served to find a more credible messiah.
     
  5. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    A recession is defined as 6 months of negative growth. The research firm that concluded we are in a recession, used a completely undefined specifcation for a recession. Even now, the projected growth is positive 2%. In other words, for the first time in American history, the mass idiot media has declared us to be receeding in a time of economic growth. Proving once again the bais in media.

    The short answer to this is, they were in support of the policies that created these problems. To be against changes in policy that supported sub-prime loans, was to be against minorites and lower class being able to get homes. No one would be willing to put their neck on the line and risk being labeled anti-minority or anti-lower class. Instead they supported a policy they knew was bad.

    Same with "mark-to-market" accounting that has resulted in the stock market drop. The whole thing came about because of the highly public folding of Enron. To be against changes in general accounting practicies, is to risk being labeled in favor of Enron type corruption. So instead of risking their political career and prevent the changes, they have allowed them even knowing their long term negative effect.

    In short, politics is the universal problem with allowing government control. We are reaping the rewards of our chosen political choices. And it will get worse.
     
  6. Pidgey

    Pidgey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I don't much care for that either, but the overall message is correct. James Howard Kunstler is not, nor claims to be a messiah. He, amongst many others, has simply been pointing out the growing energy problem for awhile, its likely effects and calls for folks to get together to solve the transition in some organized and manageable fashion. I'm in energy and know it to be true. Economy=Energy, period, end of story. A negative delta in net energy means a decline in economy. We're going negative, that's all, and none of us can simply "will" more energy into existence. There was an illusory period where that seemed to be the case, but such illusions are quickly being dispelled by some very hard realities.
     
  7. Greco

    Greco New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When Jimmy Carter was president he also raised the subject of our long-term reliance on oil. Elected officials and the general public weren't interested. Every president since then has brought up the topic with varying levels of sincerity. The fact that you've just recently discovered the problem and James Howard Kunstler has now written about it hardly makes it some revolutionary news flash.
     
  8. Pidgey

    Pidgey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I've known about it for several decades, thank you very much. Jimmy Carter was faced with certina realities in the very early years after the contiguous 48 states reached their own Peak Oil (circa ~1970). M. King Hubbert was partially proven correct in his theories by the peak in US production occurring when he said it would (high case). He also made a prediction for the rest of the world (~1995) based on a large volume of empirically-determined differentials extrapolated from our experiences with our own oil fields. He couldn't have foreseen the serious decline in production/consumption that occurred beginning in Jimmy Carter's presidency, of course, and therefore couldn't predict the delay of world peaking of RCO (Regular Conventional Oil) that did occur in late 2005.

    The underlying theory is, unfortunately, quite sound. The implications to us and our technological society are already manifest and profound. The specific blog by Kunstler linked above is simply a fair and current summary of a significant part of our present situation. It is not posted as a "nanny-nanny-boo-boo, stick-your-head-in-doodoo" riposte, but rather as a guide for you to do more investigation. Call it a... "Public Service Announcement", one that all of us would rather do without, I'm sure.
     
  9. Sihouette

    Sihouette Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The BigOil monopolies have been hard at work using their record profits to pad the right pockets, including the Auto industry, Congress and subsequent administrations, to, in essence, bring us to our financial knees and place us in a strategically vulnerable position..

    In short, they sold out our country for money. And that is called treason.

    Scores of joblessness, record foreclosures and soaring inflation of basic goods isn't a recession? Our country was tooled, willfully, to be dependant on oil for its very existance. It didn't have to be that way. And yet here is where we find ourselves slipping away, as experts predicted decades ago..all thanks to BigOil.

    Silly of me that they should be held responsible and liable for restitution to those they have wilfully harmed. ie: The United States Of America.

    Make them pay. It's very simple. I don't care how long the trail of bribes and conspiracy is, find those most responsible for coercion and fine them.
     
  10. Pidgey

    Pidgey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I've heard that same sentiment for a long time now. I don't suppose you could break it down into something more definitive, couldja'? That doesn't mean I'm saying you're wrong, by the way, just that I'd like to see it expressed more like a mathematical proof.
     
  11. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I disagree completely. If there is anything to learn from the past 4 years, it's that during the high costing energy time frame, when gasoline was selling at $2.50/gal or higher, our economy was fine. Now the economy sucks and gas is not $1.50/gal.

    In fact, when you consider inflation, oil has actually decreased in cost, not increased. Moreover, the supply of oil has increased vastly.

    Further, from an electricity stand point, the only limitation on supply, has been idiots preventing the building of new power plants. Here in Ohio, the ability to build new power plants has been continuously thwarted, and the result is large increases in cost in the forceable future.

    When the market is free to supply power, it will do so. When the market is shackled to prevent the production of power, you end up like California. There is no lack of energy, only a lack of ability to get it.
     
  12. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No the theory is not sound at all. The theory is based on currently known supplies of oil. The problem is, it doesn't take into account new oil discoveries. The reason it doesn't is because whenever the price of oil falls, the value of finding new discoveries is less. As oil prices rise, so will the value of finding new supplies, and the cycle repeats.

    Therefore, peak oil theory is a constantly moving target. Every time they claim it will peak, new locations, and larger stock piles of known reserves increase.

    What is more amazing to me is how often this disprove theory resurfaces, when one can look at the history of the peak oil theory, and see it has a 100% failure rate since 1953 when it was first created.

    Even the claim that US Peak Oil was supposedly reached, is not because of a lack of oil, but because government has enforced the theory true. Oil production has declined somewhat, but the amount of known oil reserves has increased many fold. Just the Outer Continental Shelf alone, is estimated to hold roughly 100 Billion barrels of oil, yet by government control, only 15% of it is available for production.
     
  13. Pidgey

    Pidgey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Successful businesses (operating entities) are far easier to destroy than create and build. The price of oil floats due to market pressures, like an auction. If there's a lot more supply than demand, prices fall and vice versa. Currently, the price has fallen due to demand destruction coupled with supply-side production momentum. Read that link again (if you ever did in the first place) and pay close(r) attention to the third paragraph.
     
  14. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Funny, last I heard the oil companies were investing in new oil fields. Ironically oil fields in other countries because their own country (that would be us) prevent them from doing so.

    So we elect idiots that prevent 85% of the Outer Continental Shelf from being developed to produce oil, and then blame them for investing out of the country?

    Do explain how BigOil forced people to make loans they can't afford, or forced Fannie Mae to support sub-prime loans, or how they forced the government to change the general accounting practices to cause the stock market to fall....?

    Then after you do that, explain how any of those benefit the oil companies which need business to be successful, and people to have money to buy cars, in order to sell their oil?

    Right so the solution to high gasoline prices is to fine them, and tax them? Btw, if the oil companies are a monopoly, why did they lower their prices?
     
  15. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Doesn't matter. He has a theory, and is fitting the facts to the theory. That doesn't make it true, nor does it prove legitimacy.

    Here's the bottom line. As long as there are known untapped resources, it's impossible to claim we've reached peak oil. Why? Because logically... if there are untapped resources, we clearly haven't peaked in production. This is basic logic. Not hard stuff.

    Yes, it's true demand has been reduced, coupled with an increase in production. But again, production has increased, indicating there is room for increase. If you need more examples, I'll be happy to supply. A man in Indiana rented a drilling rig, and built a well in his back yard. There was no indication of oil there, yet he struck oil. A retired farmer was approached by an oil company for exploratory drilling. They hit oil 5 times, and the man is now a retired millionaire. A guy in the south, sold his tiny road side quick-mart, bought a drilling rig, and stuck oil 57 times in the first month.

    What all of these represent is that when there is value to finding new oil, new oil will be found. In each case, they drilled in locations where there were no known oil reserves, and now there are.

    Look up the history of Saudi oil reserves, and you'll see that the known reserves of oil there has constantly been increasing. Why? Because they keep looking. They don't have Jimmy Carter to prevent drilling where ever they choose.

    For example, ANWR was created for the purpose of exploring for oil. That was one of their charter purposes. Yet, the government prevented drilling for oil in ANWR till 2003 I believe, when oil was discovered in the mid to late 80s. How do you claim we have reached peak oil when we have stock piles of oil sitting there for 20 years without getting it?

    Another example the Elk Hills were known to have oil under them for 10 to 15 years, before Al Gore arranged for the government owned land to be sold to Occidental Petroleum Company, where he owned $500K in stock. Again, you can't say we have reached peak oil, when government prevents the production of oil unless they own stock in the company getting the land.
     
Loading...

Share This Page