The coming oil shortage-what are you doing to prepare?

[splitimageview]

Actually, read the quote you posted. He's talking about policy, not science; he's making the cynical point that most policy is indeed divorced from science, as evidenced by the words 'any more'.

Yes, there is a reason he's talking just about policy. 🙂

Now the question becomes whether one agrees that first world nations should be handicapped in favor of third world nations who have no intention or capability of doing anything remotely 'green.' Socialist redistribution.

Regardless of how green the US becomes, it will do nothing to offset India and China, so the whole discussion becomes moot, whether there is any real science or not.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes, there is a reason he's talking just about policy. 🙂

Now the question becomes whether one agrees that first world nations should be handicapped in favor of third world nations who have no intention or capability of doing anything remotely 'green.' Socialist redistribution.

Regardless of how green the US becomes, it will do nothing to offset India and China, so the whole discussion becomes moot, whether there is any real science or not.

Or alternatively, of whether third world nations should be handicapped in favour of rich nations who have no intention of trying to do anything 'green' as long as they have a lazy, greedy, selfish, complacent, ill informed electorate.

Do not confuse this with socialism.

Cheers,

R.

 

[atlcruiser]

Yes, there is a reason he's talking just about policy. 🙂

Now the question becomes whether one agrees that first world nations should be handicapped in favor of third world nations who have no intention or capability of doing anything remotely 'green.' Socialist redistribution.

Regardless of how green the US becomes, it will do nothing to offset India and China, so the whole discussion becomes moot, whether there is any real science or not.

I agree with your point but that does not mean the US should not move in the right direction.

I really do not worry about these things. Say what you will about the US but we have a giant free market here where products are brought to market as the need and desire to buy makes it worthhile for business to do so. As oil becomes a greater issue other forms/types of energy systems will come to market.

Electric cars need another 5+ years to really get it going....hydrogen is a good option...cheaper/cleaner electricity is moving forward slow but moving. Nuclear will be back on the table soon and provide very clean and safe electricity.

My point is that the market and population will adapt. I see no crisis looming...... but dont forget the world ends in 2012 according to the Mayan calender 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

I really do not worry about these things. Say what you will about the US but we have a giant free market here . . . 🙂

Dear David,

I am less and less convinced that there is any such thing as a free market. There are always hidden costs (e.g. pollution). Why should the public subsidize business profits by paying these hidden costs?

The answer, of course, is that the costs are increasingly factored in to the manufacturers' costs, WEEE being a good example. But isn't hobbling the development of poor economies a hidden cost too?

(Sorry, this sounds like I'm attacking you/disagreeing with you. That was not my intention. It was just the term 'free market' that prompted the question.)

Cheers,

R.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Or alternatively, of whether third world nations should be handicapped in favour of rich nations who have no intention of trying to do anything 'green' as long as they have a lazy, greedy, selfish, complacent, ill informed electorate.

Do not confuse this with socialism.

Cheers,

R.

You could add that neither third world nations or first world nations want to hurt the corperate bottom line which doing something constructive would entail. The common factor here are corperations that operate in both areas in the free market frenzy of ever increasing profits over all else. It is simply not in their best interest, which is profit, to act. That is certainly not socialism but capitalism at it's not so finest.

Bob

 

[Roger Hicks]

You could add that neither third world nations or first world nations want to hurt the corperate bottom line which doing something constructive would entail. The common factor here are corperations that operate in both areas in the free market frenzy of ever increasing profits over all else. It is simply not in their best interest, which is profit, to act. That is certainly not socialism but capitalism at it's not so finest.

Bob

Dear Bob,

I have no argument with you there!

Cheers,

R.

 

[splitimageview]

Or alternatively, of whether third world nations should be handicapped in favour of rich nations who have no intention of trying to do anything 'green' as long as they have a lazy, greedy, selfish, complacent, ill informed electorate.

Ahh, just a matter of time before the name calling started. 😉

So, if what you are saying is true, how did all these self-same rubes suddenly become enlightened enough to elect the current president, who is so enamored by Europeans because of his propensity to blame his own country at every turn?

Do not confuse this with socialism.

Not sure what you mean by 'this.'

 

[Roger Hicks]

Ahh, just a matter of time before the name calling started. 😉

So, if what you are saying is true, how did all these self-same rubes suddenly become enlightened enough to elect the current president, who is so enamored by Europeans because of his propensity to blame his own country at every turn?



Not sure what you mean by 'this.'

Where's the name calling? This is the fundamental flaw of democracy. Its only advantage is that the other systems are even worse. A responsible, wealthy nation might make an effort to help its citizens understand that they, personally, are extremely lucky to have been born into a rich society and that they can claim no personal responsibility for their luck.

Europeans often make the mistake of equating Democrats and Republicans with 'Left' and 'Right'. By most European standards, a more accurate assessment would be 'Right' and 'Far Right'. Failing to understand this is an equally common mistake among Americans.

As for socialism... Well, the paragraph above covers it pretty well.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

Europeans often make the mistake of equating Democrats and Republicans with 'Left' and 'Right'.

Actually no. In most of Europe one refers to these parties as what the German's call Volksparteien (People's Parties). The Democrats, as the Replications, unfortunately, have become over the past few decades quite polar. As a former Cloakroom Keeper commented to me "it used to be that Speaker and House Minority Leader would argue on the floor but play golf together, today they really do hate each other".
The once American left has been hijacked by an oddball mix of nut-cases funded by North Korea, Iran and whoever has an agenda to subvert America. The left marches hand in hand today with terrorists and arab nationalists. Its hard to see who is more dangerous the hijacked left or the new right (which too has been hijacked by neo-fascist libertarians).

By most European standards, a more accurate assessment would be 'Right' and 'Far Right'. Failing to understand this is an equally common mistake among Americans.

Right and left have gotten incredibly confused in Europe (as well). Parties like the Vlaams Blok which used to wear SS uniforms and deny the Shoah now are called the Vlaams Belange (the Blok was forbidden as anti-constitutional) and have morphed into a pro-Israel, pro-liberty party completely hijacking anti-globalization and cultural integration issues. While Vlaams Belange speaks out against gencoide the European "left" marches alongside the Belgian AEL (Arab European League) who have called for violence against Jews. Parties like the DKP (German Communist Party) have even gone as far as to lend support to suicide bombing and jihad--- nothing like hearing the cries of "Khybar, Khybar", "Allah.." (Khybar it should be noted was an Oasis near Medina that was inhabited by Jews until violently conquered by Mohammed in 620 CE and then completely ethnically cleansed--- Jews and Christians alike-- by Caliph Ulmer in the following years.) to the occasional kill the jews (in arabic) at a "peace rally" with DKP flags flying alongside Hamas, Hizbolah and Milli Gorus (Turkish nationalist Islamic movement) green banners. Go over the UK and there you'll find the same with the left in bed with MAB (the Muslim Brotherhood British franchise) on the one side with English Defense League.. The left marching with Muslim fascists and the once Europe neo-fascists re-labled as the defender of occidental culture and even freedom (for example Pim Fortuyn). The story repeats itself throughout Europe..
Perhaps the concepts of left and right have become something else.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Actually no. In most of Europe one refers to these parties as what the German's call Volksparteien (People's Parties). The Democrats, as the Replications, unfortunately, have become over the past few decades quite polar. As a former Cloakroom Keeper commented to me "it used to be that Speaker and House Minority Leader would argue on the floor but play golf together, today they really do hate each other".
The once American left has been hijacked by an oddball mix of nut-cases funded by North Korea, Iran and whoever has an agenda to subvert America. The left marches hand in hand today with terrorists and arab nationalists. Its hard to see who is more dangerous the hijacked left or the new right (which too has been hijacked by neo-fascist libertarians).
Right and left have gotten incredibly confused in Europe (as well). Parties like the Vlaams Blok which used to wear SS uniforms and deny the Shoah now are called the Vlaams Belange (the Blok was forbidden as anti-constitutional) and have morphed into a pro-Israel, pro-liberty party completely hijacking anti-globalization and cultural integration issues. While Vlaams Belange speaks out against gencoide the European "left" marches alongside the Belgian AEL (Arab European League) who have called for violence against Jews. Parties like the DKP (German Communist Party) have even gone as far as to lend support to suicide bombing and jihad--- nothing like hearing the cries of "Khybar, Khybar", "Allah.." (Khybar it should be noted was an Oasis near Medina that was inhabited by Jews until violently conquered by Mohammed in 620 CE and then completely ethnically cleansed--- Jews and Christians alike-- by Caliph Ulmer in the following years.) to the occasional kill the jews (in arabic) at a "peace rally" with DKP flags flying alongside Hamas, Hizbolah and Milli Gorus (Turkish nationalist Islamic movement) green banners. Go over the UK and there you'll find the same with the left in bed with MAB (the Muslim Brotherhood British franchise) on the one side with English Defense League.. The left marching with Muslim fascists and the once Europe neo-fascists re-labled as the defender of occidental culture and even freedom (for example Pim Fortuyn). The story repeats itself throughout Europe..
Perhaps the concepts of left and right have become something else.

You're probably correct in that.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Well, I guess it depends on what region of the globe you live as to what exactly a centre position is and relative to that what is right and left of that. The only thing I believe is that the extremes at both ends produce the most conflict and lack of grounds to find any solution to any problem. It is all or nothing with no give and take.

Bob

 

[splitimageview]

The once American left has been hijacked by an oddball mix of nut-cases funded by North Korea, Iran and whoever has an agenda to subvert America.

"Once American left?" Would your meaning be the the same, if the word "once" were removed?

I wonder how much can NK possibly fund.

Europeans often make the mistake of equating Democrats and Republicans with 'Left' and 'Right'.

I dont know whether Europeans make that mistake or not, and I'm not sure what that has to do with American rubes. 🙂 And how exactly did America grow to what it became, in spite of said rubes? Curious.

The comment that I should not confuse 'this' with Socialism still doesn't mean anything to me, as I still don't know to what 'this' refers.

 

[splitimageview]

The only thing I believe is that the extremes at both ends produce the most conflict and lack of grounds to find any solution to any problem. It is all or nothing with no give and take.

And what happens with compromise? Generally the only winner is the government bureaucracy, not the people.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

I am less and less convinced that there is any such thing as a free market.

There is no such thing as a "free market". The term is typically used by the haves to lend credibility to the functioning of their less than free market against the "have-nots". Markets don't, however, freely function. There is no invisible hand guiding the markets.
What's, I think, interesting is that the loudest advocates of "free markets" seem to be the same one with theirs hand stretched out when it came to the "bank crisis". "To big" to let fail sang the chorus.

There are always hidden costs (e.g. pollution). Why should the public subsidize business profits by paying these hidden costs?

That's where taxation enters the picture.

The answer, of course, is that the costs are increasingly factored in to the manufacturers' costs,

Tax always is but that does not weaken its power as an instrument. Governments, in fact, have really only a few instruments: taxation, transfers and interest rates (exchange rates, money supply). In Europe due to the lack of tariffs and the common currency (in the EURO zone) one is more dependent upon transfers and subsidies (which effects debit) and individual taxation (since capital has little nationality) than property, capital and corporate taxation. The problem with the EURO zone is that the structure of the economies are all so different--- even Germany and France has rather little in common.

 

[Roger Hicks]

"Once American left?" Would your meaning be the the same, if the word "once" were removed?

I wonder how much can NK possibly fund.




I dont know whether Europeans make that mistake or not, and I'm not sure what that has to do with American rubes. 🙂 And how exactly did America grow to what it became, in spite of said rubes? Curious.

The comment that I should not confuse 'this' with Socialism still doesn't mean anything to me, as I still don't know to what 'this' refers.

Well, for a country so huge, so rich in natural resources (so recently exploited), so sparsely populated, and (for most of its history) with so little regard for its original inhabitants to be as poor as it is today requires either a Stalinist level of mismanagement or an electorate that does not understand the phrase 'enlightened self interest'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

There is no such thing as a "free market". The term is typically used by the haves to lend credibility to the functioning of their less than free market against the "have-nots". Markets don't, however, freely function. There is no invisible hand guiding the markets.
What's, I think, interesting is that the loudest advocates of "free markets" seem to be the same one with theirs hand stretched out when it came to the "bank crisis". "To big" to let fail sang the chorus.
That's where taxation enters the picture.

Tax always is but that does not weaken its power as an instrument. Governments, in fact, have really only a few instruments: taxation, transfers and interest rates (exchange rates, money supply). In Europe due to the lack of tariffs and the common currency (in the EURO zone) one is more dependent upon transfers and subsidies (which effects debit) and individual taxation (since capital has little nationality) than property, capital and corporate taxation. The problem with the EURO zone is that the structure of the economies are all so different--- even Germany and France has rather little in common.

Once again, we do not disagree.

Cheers,

R.

 

[splitimageview]

Well, for a country so huge, so rich in natural resources (so recently exploited), so sparsely populated, and (for most of its history) with so little regard for its original inhabitants to be as poor as it is today requires either a Stalinist level of mismanagement or an electorate that does not understand the phrase 'enlightened self interest'.

Oh, I agree, mismanagement to the extreme. The current situation was entirely government bureaucratic corruption.

America must also do an about face in terms of exploiting its own natural resources (such as oil.) The pols have been talking about reducing foreign oil consumption for decades; now the currrent admin bans gulf oil...sigh.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

"Once American left?" Would your meaning be the the same, if the word "once" were removed?

Once upon a time there was a real left in the US. Lets not forget that the International worker's movement was , more or less, born there. Many Americans lost their lives struggling for the right of collective bargaining.

I wonder how much can NK possibly fund.

Back in the early 1980s the head of the KGB in East Berlin used his diplomatic pass to bring cash across the border to fund the German "peace movement". He once said to me "the Germans and Americans are not funding them so someone has to". The Soviet Union might have been bankrupt but the cost to purchase hearts and minds in amazingly cheap.
How large do you think the budgets of NION, ANSWER and all the other front shops for Ramsey Clark and the WWP--- I actually remember debating with Sam Macey in Los Angeles--- are? How much money do you think they need to operate?
What does a single jet fighter, ballistic missile or tank cost? An M1 Abrams costs.. just to peg a reference here.. more than $6 million USD each. A F-22 Raptor jet fighter costs $140 million each and around $50,000 USD per hour to fly...
North Korea has over 1 million active soldiers--- and over 8 million in reserve--- and a budget of over $6 billion USD per year... And Iran and the others? What did Ahmadinejad say about the willingness to starve rather than relinquish atomic ambitions? And the ambitions to be a "super power"?

 

[ebolton]

The current administration has not banned oil from the Gulf of Mexico. Companies are pumping it out 24/7. Saying "...currrent admin bans gulf oil..." is self-serving, if not ignorant. I'm generally in favor of suspending new leases. Especially when there are existing leases out there that could be utilized, and are not.

 

[splitimageview]

So the 'real left' you speak of is not the same as this left? "The left marches hand in hand today with terrorists and arab nationalists."

A $6B budget with 1M active soldiers isn't much.