America wins one despite it all

Anything else you want to talk about.
Garyt
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: America wins one despite it all

Postby Garyt » Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:39 pm

I might add how I hate how much politics has become a matter of "faith", not facts.

Case in point there were 2 black suspects killed by police officers recently that were both well publicized. One was a pretty clear case of a suspect assaulting a police officer unless all the evidence had been tampered with, which I really doubt. The other was a suspect "resisting arrest" (he pulled his hands back when they attempted to cuff him, not in a violent way), and being killed in what very much seemed to be a use of excessive force, 3-4 men holding down the suspect while one of them applied a department prohibited choke hold for about 10 minutes. The grand juries found neither to warrant a trial.

What is sad is that the most Liberals of course felt that both of these were great miscarriages of justice. Most conservatives felt perfectly fine with neither going to trial.

It's sad when people find following the party line an acceptable substitute for thinking on their own, and feel perfectly fine with making a strong stand on an issue while having reviewed none of the facts of the matter.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2882
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: America wins one despite it all

Postby Dave Saxton » Sat Jan 03, 2015 3:09 am

Garyt wrote: When that became untenable the next step was to claim it was not CO2 driven.



I know climate scientists that state that it is not CO2 driven, and that is a fact supported by scientific evidence far more robust than the unbelievably sloppy "science" that states that is.

many conservatives accept the science


And many scientists don't, many of whom are liberals and who do not work for energy companies. Here's a group of scientists who ask some important questions and make some interesting comments:

http://climateaudit.org/2014/12/11/unpr ... /#comments

head in the sand about things like global warming and depletion of fossil fuels and leaving the mess for future generations


Don't you think it is more important to leave them a free and prosperous society, rather than flush freedom and prosperity down the drain in the name of cleaning up a make believe mess?
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2882
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: America wins one despite it all

Postby Dave Saxton » Sat Jan 03, 2015 3:26 am

Talk about politicians being bought and sold:

Originally blogged here:

http://notrickszone.com/

"It will no doubt astound many readers to learn that there are more than 26,500 American environmental groups. They collected total revenues of more than $81 billion from 2000 to 2012, according to Giving USA Institute, with only a small part of that coming from membership dues and individual contributions.
“Cracking Big Green” examined the Internal Revenue Service Form 990 reports of non-profit organizations. Driessen and Arnold discovered that, among the 2012 incomes of better-known environmental groups, the Sierra Club took in $97,757,678 and its Foundation took in $47,163,599. The Environmental Defense Fund listed $111,915,138 in earnings, the Natural Resources Defense Council took in $98,701,707 and the National Audubon Society took in $96,206,883. These four groups accounted for more than $353 million in one year.
That pays for a lot of lobbying at the state and federal level. It pays for a lot of propaganda that the Earth needs saving because of global warming or climate change. Now add in Greenpeace USA at $32,791,149, the Greenpeace Fund at $12,878,777; the National Wildlife Federation at $84,725,518; the National Parks Conservation Association at $25,782,975; and The Wilderness Society at $24,862,909. Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection took in $19,150,215. That’s a lot of money to protect something that cannot be “protected”, but small in comparison to other Green organizations.
If you wonder why you have been hearing and reading endless doomsday scenarios about the warming of the Earth, the rise of the seas, and the disappearance of species and forests, for decades, the reason is that a huge propaganda machine is financed at levels that are mind boggling."
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Garyt
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: America wins one despite it all

Postby Garyt » Sat Jan 03, 2015 3:45 am

rather than flush freedom and prosperity down the drain in the name of cleaning up a make believe mess?


I find the references to "freedom" in these type of situations, as "freedom" has nothing to do with the matter. The use of "freedom" in this way seems to be it's own language, I believe it's trying to say "We are the US and we do it better than anyone else". Really, the use of the term "freedom" is irrelevant to the discussion.

My guess is the numbers posted from the blog are accurate, but the comment "It pays for a lot of propaganda that the Earth needs saving because of global warming or climate change." is obviously an opinion, not a "documentary". It's a good technique though. It throws facts and opinions together, and presents it as a proof that must be believed. Given that, the opinion portions of the statement are just that, opinion.

Let us not forget that many conservatives also thought evolution was liberal hogwash (and some still believe this). Some even still think that O'bama is not a citizen and that he was born in Ethiopia. Repeating a falsehood over and over does not make it true. That is unless you belong to the tea party :D

Speaking of purchasing politicians and the Tea Party, here a brief excerpt from a Forbes article (Not a blog, but a legitimate article I'll add):

hanks to the very elected officials who achieved their Congressional offices as a result of the organizational and financial contributions of Charles and David Koch, the brothers’ massive business interests—along with the interests of just about every business in the nation—are poised to take a major hit at the hands of those they placed in positions of power.

Indeed, so concerned are the Kochs with the damage already done and the catastrophe we—and they—may now be facing, they are scurrying to gain some measure of control over their Frankenstein monsters.

Last week, Koch Industries sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) making it clear that, while they continue to object to Obamacare, they do not support the linking of Obamacare to the passage of a continuing resolution that would re-open the government.

Now, NBC is reporting—


“But privately, Koch officials have expressed concern to lawmakers that the prospect of a government default over the Obamacare issue would be a “disaster” for the economy, according to one GOP consultant who recently discussed the matter with Koch officials and asked for anonymity.”

If the circumstances were not so tragic the irony would be delicious.

Despite the Koch Brothers being among the key drivers of The Tea Party (some would say that they have, in fact, co-opted the Tea Party) a Pew Poll out last week reveals that 69 percent of those who identify with the Tea Party believe that the United States can blow by the debt ceiling deadline without major economic problems.If you are looking for those who buy and sell politicians, look no further than the Koch Brothers, the founders and bankroll behind the Tea Party.



Another bit of information:

Taking advantage of the Citizens United ruling, the billionaires Charles and David Koch and other wealthy individuals have provided financial backing for the movement that forced a now week-old government shutdown, according to The New York Times. Some House Republicans, Sanders said, have gone along with their party’s right-wing Tea Party wing to fend off well-funded primary challenges.

“We are living in a society where a handful of people with incredible sums of money like the Koch brothers and others, are undermining what this democracy is supposed to be about,” Sanders said. “Right now, as we speak, in the House of Representatives there are people who are being threatened that if they vote for a clean CR [continuing resolution to reopen the government] that huge sums of money will be spent against them in the next election,” Sanders said.

At issue in the new case is a limit on how much donors may give to all candidates and political organizations during a two-year federal election cycle. The cap now is $123,200. That includes a separate $48,600 limit on contributions to individual candidates during 2013 and 2014. A separate $2,600 limit on how much one individual may give to any specific candidate for Congress in any election is not directly at stake in this case.


The Tea Party is nothing like the grass roots movement it pretends to be. It has done a great job of marketing itself as one- but is far from a grass roots party.

Most of it's goals seem to be tied to lowering taxes on the Uber wealthy (of which most of it's members are not, they just drink the cool aid), and allowing the uber wealthy more control of politics, for example as listed above to have more financial clout to legally purchase their government representatives.


You actually think these are the types to look at things such as the enviroment in any way that does anything but enriches their coffers? THey seem remarkably altruistic to me :shock:

Look at the Koch brothers history - much of the behavior is criminal in nature.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: America wins one despite it all

Postby Byron Angel » Sat Jan 03, 2015 1:40 pm

GaryT - I'm really sorry you feel that way. I'm 66 years of age and have uncomfortably watched over the past five decades the transformation of my status from a citizen to a subject of my government. My belief is that when those political leaders you now see as great benefactors and caretakers of mankind finally emerge from behind the fog of propaganda and disinformation they have so industriously cast, you will discover to your dismay that they have been pursuing a very different agenda indeed than that which you have been led to believe.

B

Garyt
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: America wins one despite it all

Postby Garyt » Sat Jan 03, 2015 5:54 pm

Byron - it seems as though your thoughts on the matter are more ones of faith than of fact.

My father (now passed away) used to be an investigative reporter for a local paper, and one thing he told me was that to always follow the money. This means follow the money as to who has funded politicians, or follow the economic platform of a politician to see who they are truly supporting.

Are there things wrong with the more liberal left? Absolutely. While global warming is indeed a real issue and heavily spurred on by CO2, there are many who profit from the attempts to become more green, and much of this is cronyism. However, one would have to be blind to think that the current energy magnates are not protected by cronyism as well.

The Liberals get much funding from trial attorneys. I do think there is indeed a need for class action type suit to be available to keep big business in line (a hammer to make sure consumer and employee rights are not trampled), but major reform is indeed needed, which would be very tough to push by a liberal controlled government.

I must say though that one consistent issue I have seen - when it comes to economic issues that may help or hurt the common man, the "conservative" movement always sides on the side of big business, the "liberal" sides economically with the common man. To bring up just a few of the obvious issues -

1) 2008 - The Democratic party had a plan for taxes where those making over about $250,00 would see a slight additional tax. Specifically, a couple with an AGI from 250k-300k would see a 2% increase in taxes. This was rejected, and the Conservatives would not extend unemployment benefits if the Liberals insisted on this tax. TO really see any repercussions at all from the higher tax rate, you would really have to make in the 500k realm. The Conservative goal here was to cut unemployment in the middle of a deep recession to protect a small percentage of the income of the wealthy. Easy to see where the money trail goes here.

2) Obamacare - Conservatives have fought this hard, and claimed that Obamacare was only raised the cost of insurance. Health insurance costs were rising about 20% per year in the years prior to the AFA. So a plan that cost $200 in 2012 should have risen to $346 without Obamacare coming into play based on already existing increases. The other issue is when the affordable care act came into play, insurance carriers were required to cover things that they did not in the past, such as pre-existing conditions, and despite the propaganda, this was protection for the consumer. Insurance plans had many exclusion that were not explained to consumers. Case in point, there were carriers that offered a plan with a 100k maximum lifetime benefit. Explain that to a customer that has a quadruple bypass and owes $100k even though they carried insurance.

I'd also like to add that with the huge increases in healthcare, the cost of such has become a huge burden on middle class families. For instance, I have a wife and 3 children. I pay about 12k a year in premium for a plan with $2500 deductibles, and co-insurance after that. My household earns about 120k prior to 401k contributions, and I qualify for a partial subsidy under Obamacare which would reduce the premiums mentioned above to about 9k. Obamacare is not a plan to give healthcare to those that don't work - that's been in force for years already. It's a plan to help middle class families cope with the heavy burden of healthcare.

Why is it that most first world countries (and some third world countries even) provide healthcare for their citizens, where we look at healthcare as a privilege?

I'll add that much of the skyrocketing costs of healthcare come from the drug companies, who charge US citizens and insurance companies 5x for what they sell the drugs overseas for. We pay RS&D costs to pass along a cheap product to the rest of the world. Totally not free market, and this practice should be stopped. But I must say no one, Liberals or Democrats want to take on the drug companies, my guess is they have enough profits to buy both parties off.

3) They above mentioned bill conservatives are trying to pass to allow far more campaign contributions. Funny, I thought we were looking for campaign reform, not increasing the amounts that can be donated to make it easier to legally bribe your politician. Doe it not seem strange that a supposed "grass roots" organization such as the Tea Party wants to increase the amount of money spent on elections? Does not this run counter to the idea of small government instead of big government?

I think it's pretty clear the Conservative movement caters to strengthening the financial oligarchy. It's not how they preach, package or sell their product, but follow the money. It will show you what the true goals of the conservative movement are.

The political polarization we have now is something I have not seen in my lifetime. You have Conservatives and Liberals, which means Republicans and Democrats, no real moderates, all pretty well tout their party line. Makes me respect someone like John McCain, who actually seems to be capable of independent thought and does not always tow the party line.

Reminds me of a dumb blonde joke- A Blonde, a Moderate Republican and a Dinosaur have a race. Which one wins? The Blonde. The other two are extinct

User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: America wins one despite it all

Postby aurora » Sat Jan 03, 2015 7:26 pm

LONDON (Reuters) - Global oil and gas exploration projects worth more than $150 billion (£95.9 billion) are likely to be put on hold next year as plunging oil prices render them uneconomic, data shows, potentially curbing supplies by the end of the decade.
As big oil fields that were discovered decades ago begin to deplete, oil companies are trying to access more complex and hard to reach fields located in some cases deep under sea level. But at the same time, the cost of production has risen sharply given the rising cost of raw materials and the need for expensive new technology to reach the oil.

Now the outlook for onshore and offshore developments - from the Barents Sea to the Gulf of Mexico - looks as uncertain as the price of oil, which has plunged by 40 percent in the last five months to around $70 a barrel.

Next year companies will make final investment decisions (FIDs) on a total of 800 oil and gas projects worth $500 billion and totalling nearly 60 billion barrels of oil equivalent, according to data from Norwegian consultancy Rystad Energy.
But with analysts forecasting oil to average $82.50 a barrel next year, around one third of the spending, or a fifth of the volume, is unlikely to be approved, head of analysis at Rystad Energy Per Magnus Nysveen said.
"At $70 a barrel, half of the overall volumes are at risk," he said.
Around one third of the projects scheduled for FID in 2015 are so-called unconventional, where oil and gas are extracted using horizontal drilling, in what is known as fracking, or mining.
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2882
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: America wins one despite it all

Postby Dave Saxton » Sat Jan 03, 2015 7:48 pm

I'm afraid freedom has very much to do with it. All the proposed solutions are essentially statist in nature. Statism and freedom are very much at odds with each other. What would be tragic is the ascent of tyrany and no viable energy solutions resulting. That is the most likely result if its Gov driven instead of private sector driven. I would like to see a viable set of solutions to reduce the use of fossil fuels, but that will need to come from the free market to happen.

Allow me to offer an historical example. Today's gasoline powered automobiles are essentially clean -only co2 and h20 with mere traces of other emissions- compared to the autos of only 35 years ago. A common mispreception is that this miracle is the result of government imposed regulations put in place during the early 70s. Those regulations didn't change much and it wasn't until the mid 80s that the miracle started to take effect.

What really happened was a technological break through that came from auto racing. F1 and Indy Car racing was dominated by Ford/Cosworth racing engines. During the early 80s Ford collaborated with Hitachi of Japan to produce a computer controlled fuel injection system for their racing engines. The result was a revolutionary system that made the engines and the burning of their fuel super efficient. This technology carried over into non racing products world wide and the enviromental miracle followed. Before the micro processer it was not possible regardless of Gov policies.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2882
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: America wins one despite it all

Postby Dave Saxton » Sat Jan 03, 2015 8:11 pm

Byron Angel wrote:GaryT - I'm really sorry you feel that way. I'm 66 years of age and have uncomfortably watched over the past five decades the transformation of my status from a citizen to a subject of my government. My belief is that when those political leaders you now see as great benefactors and caretakers of mankind finally emerge from behind the fog of propaganda and disinformation they have so industriously cast, you will discover to your dismay that they have been pursuing a very different agenda indeed than that which you have been led to believe.

B



One of the points I meant to make speaks directly to this issue. What we are seeing on the issue of energy policies and specifically climate change is that policies are dictating the science, rather than policies being based on sound science.


In the above link to Climate Audit I posted, the commentary is now at over 400 posts (I don't blame anyone for not ploughing through it). What happened was, beyond the stark proof that the hockey stick climate models are badly flawed, one of the scientists (a warmist leaner actually) stated that "what you and I say doesn't matter." This caused an uproar. What he was pointing out was that policies are pre-determining the science. The scientists are only being used to support the policies. If the facts don't support the policies then they just don't matter. To drive home his point one of his posts stated that "unless you have The Pen and The Phone what you say does not matter." Following up, he gave an example of what kind of instructions scientist receive by the policy makers: " You will produce a study that shows that the seas will rise over the next 50 years, and it will be accurate to within 1 meter." Of course any geologist student knows that the seas have been rising slightly since the last ice age and the amount of rise over the next 50 years will be well less than 1 meter. They simpley wanted a peer reveiwed set of facts that could be used for propaganda to further their agenda.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Garyt
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: America wins one despite it all

Postby Garyt » Sat Jan 03, 2015 8:23 pm

I see what you are saying, Dave. I'm not versed enough nor knowledgeable enough I don't think to make a true determination.

What I do indeed know is that the (north) polar ice cap has almost disappeared in comparison to where it was. Apparently the temperatures have spiked quicker than what they can tell had happened in Earths somewhat recent past (I mean recent in geological terms, I have no idea what temperature changes we had say in the Permian extinction or during "Snowball Earth" times.

It seems temperature change occurring naturally is much more gradual generally than what we see now. We can look at the Venusian Climate for an example of greenhouse effect gone wild.

I think what you are saying is there is money behind making the global warming numbers come out "right". Definite possibility I think.

However, I think there would be a lot of money spent to make people want to ignore any possibility of global warming - after all, it would make things far more costly for big energy companies, who are some of the most successful lobbying companies we have (perhaps not as sucessful as the drug company lobbyists though - maybe we should refer to them as the US "Drug Cartel" :D ).

northcape
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: America wins one despite it all

Postby northcape » Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:54 am

Dave Saxton wrote:Analysist have greatly over estimated the overall cost of fracking because they are comparing it to traditional practices. Fracking is so much more efficient. A fracked well produces at a typicaly daily rate 1400:1 compared to traditional methods. Even at $55 a barrel a fracked well can pay for its self in less than a week instead of a period of years.


These numbers are totally arbitrary, or as we say, "aus der Luft gegriffen". How can you assume that any fractured well pays off, without knowing anything about the geology? Fracturing (there is no <k> in fracturing, thus there actually is no term <fracking>) is just another technology, but the limited knowledge about the reservoir properties stays the same - which means that they are variable and can be predicted only up to a certain extent (as with conventional reservoirs). Depending on the geology, a well (fractured or conventionally produced) may pay of at 20$/barrel or at 200$/barrel. Compared to conventional production, you have to add the costly injection procedure - which success again depend on the geology (in that case, the local stress field which is another unknown). So you have to overcome your limited knowledge of the area twice - which makes production by fracturing more unpredictable.

Dave Saxton wrote:Moreover, because of directional drilling the same location can be made productive at relatively high production levels for years, although a specific fracked well gives up the goods relatively quickly and has compartively short life span. This means after the initial investment in supporting exploration, and production, infrastructure, additional drilling is relatively inexpensive, as well as being enviromentally friendly. The common wisdom that fracking requires $90/ barrel oil prices to be viable is not correct.


This statement makes no sense. Again, whether a well has a long lifespan or not, does not depend on the production technology, but simply on the reservoir properties. Why is additional drilling relatively inexpensively? If you have drained an area, you need to drill a new well. The entry point maybe the same, but you still have to drill a new well path. In case of fracturing, you can only drain the area close to the well, which in fact requires many wells to exploit a large area. And about "environmentally friendly": This is a rather general statement here - why is production by fracturing more environmentally friendly than conventional production? In fact it is not since you consume large quantities of water and energy. You always have to consider, that you need a lot of energy to increase the pore pressure to create your fractures. This energy does not come out of the blue.

Dave Saxton wrote:Additionally, fracked oil requires less infrastucture, and less expensive infrastructure, to bring about the refined product to market. Old refineries can handle it while meeting enviromental goals and expensive new infrastructure is not needed as much.


And regarding refinery, what exactly is the difference to conventional production? Whether an "old refinery" can handle it, depends only on the type and quality of oil/gas, and has nothing to do with the method of production.

Dave Saxton wrote:A great thing about the new technology is that it can be shut down and started up at will in response to the markets.

It's revolutionary, and it changes the geopolitical/economics dynamics completely.


Agreed on the latter statement. However, it is a fact that hydraulic fracturing is on average way more expensive than conventional production, and will suffer with the down going oil price. It can be simply observed since the market for microseismic contractors (main technology to monitor and steer fracturing) is performing very poor now - they just get less and less jobs from the oil companies.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: America wins one despite it all

Postby Byron Angel » Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:55 am

GaryT wrote: "Byron - it seems as though your thoughts on the matter are more ones of faith than of fact."

Gary - As the old saying goes - "Man believes what he wishes to be true". Please believe me when I tell you that I have done a very great deal of homework and I used to spend time actively arguing various cases of perceived social and political import. I don't bother anymore. People are generally too attached to their preconceived notions. Many people are foolish enough to actually believe the speeches of politicians! Case in point - The Affordable Care Act. This was strenuously marketed to the American public as a miraculous panacea for all the supposed shortcomings of the existing American healthcare system, but was in reality legislatively crammed down our throats without any discussion or knowledge of what was actually contained in the bill. The most honest thing that can be said about this legislation is that it has placed in the hands of a single agent - the federal government of the United States of America - total control over what healthcare services are to be granted or denied to each citizen, how much they must pay for it, who will provide those services and how much they will be paid to do so. American healthcare will inevitably become perverted into a gigantic opaque bureaucracy, unanswerable to the public, whose conduct will be governed first and foremost by political and money considerations. Delivery of healthcare will functionally become a tertiary consideration. Why do I say this? Examine the histories of the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency for a start.

This nation was conceived as a republic of free citizens endowed with natural rights who consented to be governed within strictly delineated limits. Since then our nation has morphed into a "popular democracy", then successively into a technocracy, a sprawling bureaucracy, and now a cynical manipulative plutocracy. The prognosis is not good.

Re the current climate foolishness - You mentioned that your father once advised you to "follow the money". Take a close look at the sources of the vast sums of money that fund the climate alarmist campaign. Read BOTH sides of the debate. I think you may be surprised at what you discover.

B

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2882
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: America wins one despite it all

Postby Dave Saxton » Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:08 pm

@ North Cape. You make some good points that I can not disagree too much with. I do think that Fracking is here to stay but it will have to roll with market forces and will influence the ebbs and tides of the market.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Garyt
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: America wins one despite it all

Postby Garyt » Mon Jan 05, 2015 7:50 pm

I'm afraid freedom has very much to do with it. All the proposed solutions are essentially statist in nature. Statism and freedom are very much at odds with each other. What would be tragic is the ascent of tyrany and no viable energy solutions resulting. That is the most likely result if its Gov driven instead of private sector driven. I would like to see a viable set of solutions to reduce the use of fossil fuels, but that will need to come from the free market to happen.


A financial Oligarchy has the same ability to restrict freedom as any state based government (Meaning "of the state", not state specific government).

In our past, the state stepping in has usually protected us from financial oligarchies. Look at the late 19th century and turn of the century period. We had unbridled, unregulated capitalism. The combination of labor organizing and government regulation help curbed the excesses of the Rockefellers, the J.P. Morgans and the like, with things like child labor laws, 40 hour work weeks, minimum wage, worker's compensation. You can be assured that the "captains of industry" were very opposed to these types of regulation.

Often revered as "Captains of industry", these types climbed on the backs of those that worked for them which led to great profits for them but horrible working conditions and quality of life for their employees.

This is what unregulated capitalism breeds, there is not enough altruism out there to compensate for this.

You seem to think regulation breeds a world like the fiction based world in the novel 1984. I look at real world examples of the US at the turn of the century as to what a lack of regulation breeds.

Preparing ourselves for alternative types of energy to fossil fuel is a necessity. At least of one cares at all about future generations. It's not something that will be handles well by our current economic leaders. Our current leaders are very short sited, look for a good financial quarter at the expense of a decade or less down the road. With energy, without government regulation, the goal would be to suck the cheapest source dry and spend little on R&D for incorporating new methods. Government providing incentives for new energy R&D is the best way to go about preparing ourselves for a time with expensive or non-existent fossil fuels. It's not perfect, there will be cronyism, but it works better than the alternative.



in

Garyt
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: America wins one despite it all

Postby Garyt » Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:53 am

BTW - I am not opposed to fracking unless there is something that shows it is somehow detrimental. I don't hold to any party platform but try to look at anything like this on a stand alone basis.

And to oppose it would require nota slight possibility of being detrimental, but a real tangible issue. Such as contaminating the water of aquifers.

I'm not at all saying it does - just that if there was a potential of this type of damage it would have to be a major concern.

But as oil prices are low, now would be the time to research potential damages to be caused by fracking.


Return to “Off Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest