Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Attention leftist hypocrites: oil question

Attention leftist hypocrites: oil question (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 02:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
While you are technically correct, they have elements which are non-carbon, which was my point. They represent part of the non-carbon economy.
100% of their fuel is the exact same fuel as the "carbon economy." They get lower overall mileage than the geo metro or the Honda CRX (members of the "carbon economy"). If your evidence that the "non-carbon economy" is viable comes from hybrids, you're toast.

When I say that bio-fuels are non-carbon, of course what I mean is that they are carbon neutral. Your 80% figure is correct only if you have massive subsidies for inappropriate biofuel crops. But I digress.
Which are the only biofuels that are (barely) viable in the US! If you take away the massive subsidies of inappropriate corn-ethanol, there's nothing else! You can't grow sugarcane in the US on a large enough scale to produce fuel from it. Face it, with today's technology, bio-fuels either aren't non-carbon (de facto, as things are with the subsidies), or they aren't fuel (without dino-fuel input, they produce no more than they consume; they're a storage medium). They would be valuable for laundering energy if they could input electric, from solar or wind or hydro or nuclear. But they can't.

Nonsense. Is that what the 'clean coal coalition' or whatever they're calling themselves now told you? Well, I guess all the folks who used to work for big tobacco had to end up somewhere.
You're blowing smoke, trying to wring a couple more years of Corporate Welfare for Big Oil out of the situation.
Oh the irony! Where's your solar array peeb? You're the one blowing smoke if you think that solar and wind are viable today but you won't put your money where your mouth is!

All I have to do to demonstrate to you that they're not ready yet is to show you your empty roof and Al Gore's empty roof. You should be the easiest sell of all for the solar salesman, after all you would adopt it if it were only affordable but still not more affordable than oil, but even you aren't convinced. That's because the technology isn't good enough yet.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 03:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
100% of their fuel is the exact same fuel as the "carbon economy." They get lower overall mileage than the geo metro or the Honda CRX (members of the "carbon economy"). If your evidence that the "non-carbon economy" is viable comes from hybrids, you're toast.
You don't know much about this issue, do you? plug in hybrids, flex fuel vehicle, biodiesel vehicles or all electric vehicles do not necessarily run on carbon, but you knew this already.
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Which are the only biofuels that are (barely) viable in the US! If you take away the massive subsidies of inappropriate corn-ethanol, there's nothing else! You can't grow sugarcane in the US on a large enough scale to produce fuel from it. Face it, with today's technology, bio-fuels either aren't non-carbon (de facto, as things are with the subsidies), or they aren't fuel (without dino-fuel input, they produce no more than they consume; they're a storage medium). They would be valuable for laundering energy if they could input electric, from solar or wind or hydro or nuclear. But they can't.
We've done this before. You lost the argument last time, so it's not clear why you'd want to drag everyone into the same mental through you're stuck in again. Oh wait, it is.
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Oh the irony! Where's your solar array peeb?
That's totally irrelevant, but, since you are curious, my house is, indeed, carbon neutral.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You should be the easiest sell of all for the solar salesman, after all you would adopt it if it were only affordable but still not more affordable than oil, but even you aren't convinced. That's because the technology isn't good enough yet.
Skeleton, you'd look less foolish if you stuck to topics you knew anything about. Oh, wait, that's nothing.
When you stop arguing, and just start making personal attacks, it signals to the rest of us that you're out of intellectual steam, and are just doing the mental equivalent of trying to urinate on other people's shoes. Enough, you're done.
     
kido331
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 03:34 PM
 
peeb, i can only hope that obama adopts all of your positions and arguments for his energy policy. it will be the largest landslide since '84.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 04:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
You don't know much about this issue, do you? plug in hybrids, flex fuel vehicle, biodiesel vehicles or all electric vehicles do not necessarily run on carbon, but you knew this already.
What plug in hybrids? What electric vehicles? There aren't any on the market (the sub 100 grand market). If they can't even be brought to market, what makes you think they can replace the majority of the cars on the road?

Biodiesel and corn ethanol don't produce energy, they launder energy, and the energy they launder is only fossil energy, since you can't grow corn on electric fertilizers and tractors, because they don't currently exist.

Originally Posted by peeb
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Which are the only biofuels that are (barely) viable in the US
We've done this before.
Nope. I've not argued about biodiesel before this thread. You're thinking of someone else.

That's totally irrelevant, but, since you are curious, my house is, indeed, carbon neutral.
Great, how? Solar? How much did it cost you? I didn't see you answer the last time I asked.

Skeleton, you'd look less foolish if you stuck to topics you knew anything about. Oh, wait, that's nothing.
When you stop arguing, and just start making personal attacks, it signals to the rest of us that you're out of intellectual steam, and are just doing the mental equivalent of trying to urinate on other people's shoes. Enough, you're done.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 04:41 PM
 
$2 for a gallon of gas?!?! Preposterous! Didn't these so-called experts listen to the folks at the DOE?

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/gas-could-fall-2-if/story.aspx?guid={2673C102-68E0-41D9-9C9A-10EE2E723948}&dist=MostReadHome

Clearly, these guys just need a few economics courses to set them straight!

"Record oil prices are inflated by speculation and not justified by market fundamentals," according to Gheit. "Based on supply and demand fundamentals, crude-oil prices should not be above $60 per barrel.'"

"Speculators now account for about 70% of all benchmark crude trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up from 37% in 2000, said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., chairman of the investigations subcommittee. Stupak introduced a bill on Friday that would limit index speculation."

Stupid economic ignoramuses!!! The Wall Street Journal really should ban those trolls from appearing on it's pages!
( Last edited by stupendousman; Jun 26, 2008 at 04:49 PM. )
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 04:52 PM
 
It also says what I've been saying all along

Originally Posted by The Article
There has been much discussion recently about how big a role speculators have been playing in the sharp rise in energy prices, though no consensus has emerged on this point.
And, not what I've been saying all along, but to display a balance in the article not present in your post...

Originally Posted by The Article
However, other witnesses said that pure speculators have had little impact on energy prices, which have doubled in the past year to about $135 per barrel. Both Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman have dismissed the impact of speculators on prices paid by consumers.
I've also seen a lot of talk about the fact that gas prices at the pump haven't shot up nearly to the degree that crude prices have. So if crude prices are indeed in a bubble and come back down, we'd probably see some price drop at the pump, but not half. If I have some time I'll look for data later.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 05:00 PM
 
On top of that, would you support the nanny-state, communist-style government intervention that this article is talking about? I find that surprising.

Personally, I'd support it - if there are market rules in place (every market has rules which direct it - almost always created and enforced by, you guessed it, GOVERNMENT) that encourage irrational behavior and/or skew competition, then I think those rules should be corrected.

But I thought your plan to screw the speculators was to just drill more?
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
There aren't any on the market (the sub 100 grand market)...
Great, how? Solar? How much did it cost you? ...
And we come back to the real point here. You're ignoring the facts. You're standing in front a freight train arguing about the economics of freight trains, imagining that that will stop it bearing down on you and running you over.
You KNOW that it is vital to move away from fossil fuels. You KNOW that the earlier that is done the better. You KNOW that the technology to do it is available now, but your entire response is that you might be able to wring a few more years of oil subsidy before we have to do it.

You're not paying attention, and I'm fed up with trying to educate a petulant and willfully ignorant jackass.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 05:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
But the US government potentially could take control over US oil companies, much more so than they could foreign oil companies, if the nation's security depended on it (read: oil embargo). That's the only way that what stupendousman's saying makes sense to me. Speculators could see a difference between domestic and foreign products, in that domestic products could be influenced to serve our country's immediate needs. But not if the product depends on foreign refineries no matter how much we drill.
ask and ye shall receive
YouTube - Maxine Waters threatens to nationalize U.S. oil industries
45/47
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 05:28 PM
 
It's a sad day that we're still talking about this. Oil companies need to get with the program and wean themselves off welfare or go extinct.
( Last edited by peeb; Jun 26, 2008 at 05:45 PM. )
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 05:34 PM
 
Woohoo! Socialized Oil™!
( Last edited by CreepDogg; Jun 26, 2008 at 05:41 PM. )
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 05:37 PM
 
Why are you in favor of socialized oil? I mean, it seems like it is one of the main Republican planks, and everyone is clamoring for it, but is it really a good idea?
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 05:42 PM
 
The wink was for sarcasm. I'm aware we already have it and many are clamoring for more of it. Just wanted to raise awareness and call it what it is...

Of course, what Waters is calling for brings it to a whole new level and would be even worse...
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 05:45 PM
 
Oops. Missed that...
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 05:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
And we come back to the real point here. You're ignoring the facts. You're standing in front a freight train arguing about the economics of freight trains, imagining that that will stop it bearing down on you and running you over.
You KNOW that it is vital to move away from fossil fuels. You KNOW that the earlier that is done the better. You KNOW that the technology to do it is available now, but your entire response is that you might be able to wring a few more years of oil subsidy before we have to do it.

You're not paying attention, and I'm fed up with trying to educate a petulant and willfully ignorant jackass.
Well I'm glad you're finally giving up; you were annoying from the start. If anyone else wants to bail you out, I'll summarize for them, since I would so love to be proven wrong and be able to live in your fantasy land with you: Solar and wind and other renewable electrics are not ready to replace oil. If you cut the oil lifeline, there is no renewables safety net waiting below. Hydro, wind, solar, and wave work in a few niche places (one of which I live in), and the rest of the US depends on oil. If the price of oil and other oily crises are not tended to, the rest will not switch to renewables, they will simply perish. But so what if they're all out of bread, let them eat cake!
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 05:56 PM
 
You have such a feeble command of the basic facts that arguing with you is pointless. Your post is riddled with the same basic factual errors that you keep on repeating. Come back when you get your GED.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 06:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
You have such a feeble command of the basic facts that arguing with you is pointless. Your post is riddled with the same basic factual errors that you keep on repeating. Come back when you get your GED.
edit: troll feeding withdrawn

Here's the basic facts: do you drive an electric or plug-in hybrid? No, because they're not available to buy. Do you still use oil, even though it's important to your world-view to move beyond oil? Yes, because the alternatives are not ready yet. Unless you think that the US can sustain itself on bicycles and Tesla roadsters, or unless you have a secret feasible electric car that I'm unaware of, you're nothing more than an entertaining blowhard, same as all the right wing blowhards you love to hate.
( Last edited by Uncle Skeleton; Jun 27, 2008 at 05:10 PM. )
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 06:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
On top of that, would you support the nanny-state, communist-style government intervention that this article is talking about? I find that surprising.

Personally, I'd support it - if there are market rules in place (every market has rules which direct it - almost always created and enforced by, you guessed it, GOVERNMENT) that encourage irrational behavior and/or skew competition, then I think those rules should be corrected.

But I thought your plan to screw the speculators was to just drill more?
That's one way.

I would not be opposed to closing loopholes which encourage manipulation of markets in ways which hurts the economy either. Let's do a little of both!
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 07:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Here's the basic facts: bla bla bla.
Unfortunately, again, you're arguing with your fantasy strawman. My proposal was to increase gas prices by 10c a month for the next ten years. Nothing you just said makes any sense as a response to my proposal.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 07:40 PM
 
Your proposal would be voted down and repealed faster than a creationist school board. The majority of Americans that don't live in renewable-friendly niches won't appreciate being sacrificed on the altar of your eco-fascism, and I have to say they'd be pretty justified in their indignation. Give them an alternative first (and no, telling them to invent their way out of it is not an alternative), then it would work. Show me the electric car for the middle class first. Then your punitive dino tax could work.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 07:43 PM
 
You're like a man living in a house heated entirely by burning his furniture, insisting there is no other way to heat it. **** off and waste someone else's time.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 08:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
you're Like A Man Living In A House Heated Entirely By Burning His Furniture, Insisting There Is No Other Way To Heat It. **** Off And Waste Someone Else's Time.
Don't..feed..the..troll!!
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 08:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
I've also seen a lot of talk about the fact that gas prices at the pump haven't shot up nearly to the degree that crude prices have. So if crude prices are indeed in a bubble and come back down, we'd probably see some price drop at the pump, but not half. If I have some time I'll look for data later.
OK - did quickly find some data here.

Among the comments...

In the past year, crude oil prices have risen from nearly $69 per barrel to $136. A gallon of regular unleaded gas has gone from an average of $2.98 to $4.07 — a 37% increase.

For most of the past two decades, oil and gas prices have tracked each other, with gas costing two to three times the price of a gallon of crude. Now the ratio is down to 1.28-to-1, with crude oil representing 78% of the price of a gallon of gas. Combined state and federal taxes are between 6% and 12%. Refiners, distributors and retailers divide up the rest.
Also interestingly...

If crude oil prices come down, refiners and retailers say they will seek to recoup their losses, and the price at the pump is likely to remain high. "When wholesale prices start to fall, retailers will try to expand margins to make up for what they lost on the way up," says Jeff Lenard of the Association for Convenience and Petroleum Retailing.
And I swear I didn't plant this guy...

"You're looking at Economics 101," says Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. "People throughout the country are altering their driving habits, which means that demand is going south."
It also says retailers are eating most of the profit loss, which would make sense. The pain tends to get greater as you go further down the supply chain...
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 08:09 PM
 
Your posts are an insult to us all. Everyone who has been subjected to your drivel is stupider as a result.
THIS POST HAS APPARENTLY BEEN CENSORED.
The sentiment was that he should remove himself. In a sexually explicit way. Given the unusual combination of stubborn willful ignorance, rudeness and lack of any interest in learning about the issues, I felt it was pretty restrained.
( Last edited by peeb; Jun 26, 2008 at 08:37 PM. )
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 08:32 PM
 
Here's another interesting article, apparently from the viewpoint of a speculator. Take it as you will. He's got a few pictures showing the relationship between the prices of crude and gas (and diesel, for good measure). The short-run one is below, clearly showing that the 'normal' gap has indeed significantly shrunk.



This gets more interesting if you hit the link and look at the other charts with a decade-long view.

Also interesting (admittedly from the mouth of a speculator adviser...imagine that they might have a different viewpoint than someone from OPEC...):

Oil has been over $100 continuously since late February, 49 trading days! With such a long duration, this is far more than a speculative spike. Real global fundamentals are driving the lion’s share of it. World oil demand is growing faster than global supplies, and oil is being bid up as a result.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 10:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Your posts are an insult to us all. Everyone who has been subjected to your drivel is stupider as a result.
THIS POST HAS APPARENTLY BEEN CENSORED.
The sentiment was that he should remove himself. In a sexually explicit way. Given the unusual combination of stubborn willful ignorance, rudeness and lack of any interest in learning about the issues, I felt it was pretty restrained.
Apparently Peeb was insulting me? I can't make out where his post starts and the censored parts end. Regardless, it's funny that he claimed to have me on ignore, but still knew exactly when I pointed out his trolling behavior without being quoted.

Creepdog: I'm swamped with work right now and don't have a ton of time right now to read the whole link and respond, but will try to sometime later. This chart represents the price of gas as compared to the price of crude, right?
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 10:55 PM
 
Yes. Price of gas to price of crude over time. The one I posted is over the past year and a half because it's easier to see the recent change. The link has some others with a decade look-back. The time right after Katrina is interesting as well, as that was the other major event where there was a significant swing in the price relationship.
     
Kerrigan  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2008, 02:37 AM
 
Now that peeb is gone, this thread is humming along nicely.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2008, 08:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
Now that peeb is gone, this thread is humming along nicely.
Maybe I missed it, did you ever establish there are any leftists who both oppose domestic drilling and support pressuring Saudi Arabia to increase drilling?
     
Kerrigan  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2008, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Maybe I missed it, did you ever establish there are any leftists who both oppose domestic drilling and support pressuring Saudi Arabia to increase drilling?
None other than Nancy Pelosi and a *veto-proof* majority of the Democrat controlled congress passed a bill allowing the DoJ to sue OPEC members to pressure them to increase output.

These are the same Democrats in congress who, along with their constitutuents, oppose domestic drilling.

You must really make an effort to shield yourself from the facts about US energy policy if you need me to point out these well known congressional developments. Why are you even bothering to participate in this discussion without knowing these things?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2008, 02:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
Why are you even bothering to participate in this discussion without knowing these things?
That's a dumb question. This thread hasn't been about your topic since page 1 (which I admit I haven't read). I thought if you were going to make snide comments about the thread being on track, you should at least bother to post in it yourself.
     
Kerrigan  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2008, 03:16 PM
 
I haven't read since page 1 either. These types of discussions can be too weighty for summer, don't you agree? I'd rather go skiing.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2008, 07:30 PM
 
Are there any leftists who don't both oppose domestic drilling and support pressuring Saudi Arabia to increase production? Now that peeb is gone, I think the answer is safely no.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2008, 07:48 PM
 
why is it in sci-fi movies you don't see spaceships needing gas?
     
Kerrigan  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2008, 08:01 PM
 
There aren't any gas stations in space, that I know of.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2008, 08:44 PM
 
so in order to go to the final frontier or the next level, we would need to develop a new fuel source...
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2008, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
Are there any leftists who don't both oppose domestic drilling and support pressuring Saudi Arabia to increase production? Now that peeb is gone, I think the answer is safely no.
Not sure if I qualify as a 'leftist' (I'm definitely not a Republican), but I oppose both. I support letting the market work as is intended. For anyone to drill anywhere, they should pay a fair market price for the land or for the right to do so.

As discussed ad infinitum in this thread, I'd also support correcting any conditions, particularly around speculation, that are creating erratic market behavior.
     
Kerrigan  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2008, 11:04 PM
 
Ok, I have another question for you guys: explain why Obama supports domestic corn-based ethanol production, but is opposed to the importation of Brazilian ethanol fermented from sugarcane, in spite of the fact that the latter is more efficient to produce and has 7 times the energy balance?

(I will not accept explanations based on the "infant industry" and "national security" arguments that politicians frequently use as a textbook method of misleading the public about the need to protect a given industry or business whose interests are in some way tied to their own)

This, to me, is another baffling case of a contradictory energy policy that needs to be clarified.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2008, 11:12 PM
 
Absolutely agree. Obama is quiet on nuclear power and his position on ethanol is essentially just more farm state welfare. McCain on the other hand wants to give more welfare checks to Alaskans. Me, I support government incentives for solar energy to help the solar companies based in California.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2008, 11:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
Ok, I have another question for you guys: explain why Obama supports domestic corn-based ethanol production, but is opposed to the importation of Brazilian ethanol fermented from sugarcane, in spite of the fact that the latter is more efficient to produce and has 7 times the energy balance?

(I will not accept explanations based on the "infant industry" and "national security" arguments that politicians frequently use as a textbook method of misleading the public about the need to protect a given industry or business whose interests are in some way tied to their own)

This, to me, is another baffling case of a contradictory energy policy that needs to be clarified.
Illinois is a corn state. Flat fields grow acres and acres of corn. Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana also are corn producing states. Toss in farm subsidies, and ask "Is there a way of looking at this that suggests Mr. Obama is playing to the US corn producers?"
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2008, 11:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Illinois is a corn state. Flat fields grow acres and acres of corn. Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana also are corn producing states. Toss in farm subsidies, and ask "Is there a way of looking at this that suggests Mr. Obama is playing to the US corn producers?"
ummmm .... if he supported importing fuel from Brazil, wouldn't you just complain that he was promoting exporting potential US jobs and supporting Chavez, and then go on endlessly about how he hates America???
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2008, 11:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Not sure if I qualify as a 'leftist' (I'm definitely not a Republican), but I oppose both.
To the "rightists" that makes you a "leftist" (essentially, if you're not a "rightist" you're a "leftist" ... there is no middle)
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2008, 12:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
ummmm .... if he supported importing fuel from Brazil, wouldn't you just complain that he was promoting exporting potential US jobs and supporting Chavez, and then go on endlessly about how he hates America???
You could have asked the opposite of my question, saying "Is there a way of looking at this which does not suggest Mr. Obama is playing to US corn producers?" - and then perhaps shown how that might be.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2008, 12:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
You could have asked the opposite of my question, saying "Is there a way of looking at this which does not suggest Mr. Obama is playing to US corn producers?" - and then perhaps shown how that might be.
Actually, I have no doubt that Obama is playing to US corn producers. But, that's what politicians do. A politician who doesn't play to select groups of people doesn't get elected. I'm just pointing out that there are those who would interpret it negatively either way.
     
Kerrigan  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2008, 01:01 AM
 
Saying that all politicians pander to certain groups is not a good answer because here we have Obama supporting a course of action that is detrimental to our economy because it does not make good use of the economic principle of comparative advantage. It is actually detrimental to the US economy (in a small way, albeit) and sends unclear messages about what our energy policy as a nation is.

But yes, I agree that there are those who would interpret it negatively either way. For my part, on economic issues like this, I like to think that I put economic interests before political interests, and on that basis I am always willing to attack protectionist policies even when they are supported by republicans, like Bush's protection of the steel industry or Romney's stupid proposals for the auto industry, or McCain's lame proposal to eliminate the gas tax that, as economists know, would have had no effect on the equilibrium price of gas.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2008, 08:11 PM
 
http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/pos...ZmNDVmMjA0ZWY=

Bush Says Drill, Drill, Drill — and Oil Drops $9! [Larry Kudlow]
In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.

Now isn’t this interesting?

Democrats keep saying that it will take 10 years or longer to produce oil from the offshore areas. And they say that oil prices won’t decline for at least that long. And they, along with Obama and McCain, bash so-called oil speculators. And today we had a real-world example as to why they are wrong. All of them. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain — all of them.

Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a single new drop of oil has been lifted. What does this tell us? Well, if Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That’s the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime.
I'll repeat....we need to DRILL DRILL DRILL *and* CONSERVE CONSERVE CONSERVE to keep prices down until we have the technology to no longer be dependent on foreign sources of energy.
     
stevesnj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern, NJ (near Philly YO!)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2008, 08:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
Why is it that Americans are desperately begging OPEC to ramp up its oil production to bring down prices, while at the same time opposing domestic drilling? Let me get this straight...it's acceptable to drill for more oil in the middle east, because nobody cares about the Muslim world, but it's totally unacceptable to do more exploration in North America? How do you reconcile this discrepancy?
wel were the greatest country in the world...we deserve to let others suffer why we reap the rewards...duhh
MacBook Pro 15" i7 ~ Snow Leopard ~ iPhone 4 - 16Gb
     
Uncle Doof
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2008, 09:09 PM
 
Anyone mentioned this yet?

There's an oil field sitting about two miles off the north coast of Alaska which has enough oil to supply the US for 200 years. No imports needed.

However, when Kissinger went over to the ME to secure oil in the 60s, two conditions were placed on the contract:

1) You must denominate in US dollars.
2) You must buy US national debt.

Everyone with me so far? Yes, that's right - if the US gets its own oil from Alaska, there's nobody to buy the national debt. Result: economy goes tits up real quick.

Two nations refused the two conditions:

1) Iraq.
2) Iran.

It's not about oil - there's *no* shortage of that. It's about the US economy.

Everything make more sense now? The way they're not building refining capacity and not going drilling? The Gulf war? The way Chavez is getting all shirty with the US? The way Iran is denominating in Euros? The way they're pressuring OPEC into more production? (more production = more reduction in escalating national debt). The way the oil price is going up? (higher price = more reduction in national debt, since it's bought at a percentage of sale price).

There ya go - that's what's happening. I trust that answers your OP question, Kerri.

You're welcome.
If you don't want to be eaten, stop acting like food
     
Kerrigan  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2008, 09:35 PM
 
Leave it to Uncle Doofy to give a straight answer... Thanks
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2008, 12:20 PM
 
The guys who have the monopoly on increased production - OPEC, announces they'll increase a little. Price of oil goes up.

A month later guys who can provide some competition to them - THE U.S., has it's President announce that he's serious about drilling and has rescinded his order that halted drilling (Congress does have to act as well to get it done) and the price of oil drops dramatically in 2 days.

Could someone again tell me how stupid I am to have claimed that doing the sort of thing Bush is doing could result in what is now happening?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:45 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,