This should be a fun court case...
Brent P
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080520/pl_nm/congress_opec_dc
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives overwhelmingly
approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue
OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set
crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.
The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran
and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must
follow.
<...>
--------------------------------------------
OPEC lawyer tries to present the loss of value in the dollar and the
judge says he can't use that defense.... then OPEC loses the case...
and then what? Invasion of all OPEC member nations? lol.
Nate Nagel
fer fuck's sake. when will the administration, legislature, et. al.
realize that the current high gas prices are a GIFT to them? it's
bringing back the concept of conservation without anyone having to take
responsibility for raising taxes.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Brent P
If it were just high gas prices it would be. But there is a deeper cause
and effect here that also involves the money itself.
I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that most people in office are just
plain stupid dupes that are willing to whore themselves to anyone with
money and a superfically barely plausable story.
sue opec... lol.
Harry K
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Starting with the fact that most of the 'high prices' are caused by
speculators, not OPEC.
Harry K
Brent P
> Starting with the fact that most of the 'high prices' are caused by
> speculators, not OPEC.
Oil is the latest federal reserve caused bubble. The money that is
created out of fat air has to go somewhere.
necromancer
<turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Starting with the fact that most of the 'high prices' are caused by
>speculators, not OPEC.
And a US dollar that has been so badly devalued over the last few
years. Co-incidentally the devaluation started about the same time
that oil prices started to spike.
--
"The record run in oil prices is related more to
speculation and a weakening dollar than supply
and demand in the market. In terms of fundamentals,
fear of supply reliability is overblown."
--Exxon-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson
spamT...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Foreign companies have to follow our laws, or what? We won't buy their
oil?
Dave
necromancer
>On May 20, 6:17 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> OPEC lawyer tries to present the loss of value in the dollar and the
>> judge says he can't use that defense.... then OPEC loses the case...
>> and then what? Invasion of all OPEC member nations? lol.
>
>
>
>Foreign companies have to follow our laws, or what? We won't buy their
>oil?
If only we had leadership in this nation that would stand up and ban
the import of OPEC oil into the US if need be.....
"Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a
tremendous toll on our economy and people. It's a
cause of the increased inflation and unemployment we
now face. This intolerable dependence on foreign oil
threatens our economic independence and the very
security of our nation. The energy crisis is real.
It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger
to our nation. These are facts and we simply must
face them."
--President Jimmy Carter, July 15, 1979
necromancer
<tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080520/pl_nm/congress_opec_dc
>OPEC lawyer tries to present the loss of value in the dollar and the
>judge says he can't use that defense.... then OPEC loses the case...
>and then what? Invasion of all OPEC member nations? lol.
Was wondering just exactly *how* the justice department plans to
collect on that if they win the lawsuit.
--
"That's interesting. I hadn't heard that. ..."
--George W. Bush on the prospect of US$4.00 gas
Brent P
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:17:53 -0500, Brent P
><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080520/pl_nm/congress_opec_dc
>
>>OPEC lawyer tries to present the loss of value in the dollar and the
>>judge says he can't use that defense.... then OPEC loses the case...
>>and then what? Invasion of all OPEC member nations? lol.
>
> Was wondering just exactly *how* the justice department plans to
> collect on that if they win the lawsuit.
By the force of the US military I suppose. That's really what props up
the dollar these days IMO.
Iraq stopped taking dollars for oil, got invaded. Now Iran has stopped
taking dollars for oil, and they appear to be next.
Matthew T. Russotto
Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080520/pl_nm/congress_opec_dc
>
>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives overwhelmingly
>approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue
>OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set
>crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.
>
>The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran
>and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must
>follow.
>
>OPEC lawyer tries to present the loss of value in the dollar and the
>judge says he can't use that defense.... then OPEC loses the case...
>and then what? Invasion of all OPEC member nations? lol.
Nothing happens at all, except that OPEC members can't come to the US
without being arrested (just like DeBeers executives). I actually
thought that was already the case.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Matthew T. Russotto
Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>fer fuck's sake. when will the administration, legislature, et. al.
>realize that the current high gas prices are a GIFT to them?
The administration knows. But they have to pretend they don't for
political reasons.
And it's not exactly a gift; I'm sure they worked for it.
Matthew T. Russotto
Harry K <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Starting with the fact that most of the 'high prices' are caused by
>speculators, not OPEC.
Sure hope so. Because if it's so, in a few months prices will drop by
$10 or so and some of those speculators will take a licking.
Matthew T. Russotto
necromancer <newsgroup> wrote:
>
>If only we had leadership in this nation that would stand up and ban
>the import of OPEC oil into the US if need be.....
>
>"Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a
> tremendous toll on our economy and people. It's a
> cause of the increased inflation and unemployment we
> now face. This intolerable dependence on foreign oil
> threatens our economic independence and the very
> security of our nation. The energy crisis is real.
> It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger
> to our nation. These are facts and we simply must
> face them."
> --President Jimmy Carter, July 15, 1979
Do you remember the Carter years? At all?
You want to do something about dependence on foreign oil, start by
allowing exploitation of domestic oil. Cutting off OPEC oil is going
to do nothing but accelerate the trend of outsourced manufacturing,
refining, and everything else. Not to mention send inflation through
the roof and destroy several US industries -- travel, trucking, and
the auto industry to name three.
Matthew T. Russotto
Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2008-05-21, necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:17:53 -0500, Brent P
>><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080520/pl_nm/congress_opec_dc
>>
>>>OPEC lawyer tries to present the loss of value in the dollar and the
>>>judge says he can't use that defense.... then OPEC loses the case...
>>>and then what? Invasion of all OPEC member nations? lol.
>>
>> Was wondering just exactly *how* the justice department plans to
>> collect on that if they win the lawsuit.
>
>By the force of the US military I suppose. That's really what props up
>the dollar these days IMO.
The US military and US prison system is all that ever propped up the
dollar -- even on the gold standard.
>Iraq stopped taking dollars for oil, got invaded. Now Iran has stopped
>taking dollars for oil, and they appear to be next.
Ante hoc ergo propter hoc? Iran has been "next" for a long time,
longer than they've been taking Euros for oil.
Brent P
No, this started when they started ramping down their taking dollars for
oil. They've been ramping it down for years. They just recently achieved
zero.
necromancer
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>In article <0bm8345p74rvmckrl...@4ax.com>,
>necromancer <newsgroup> wrote:
>>
>>If only we had leadership in this nation that would stand up and ban
>>the import of OPEC oil into the US if need be.....
>>
>>"Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a
>> tremendous toll on our economy and people. It's a
>> cause of the increased inflation and unemployment we
>> now face. This intolerable dependence on foreign oil
>> threatens our economic independence and the very
>> security of our nation. The energy crisis is real.
>> It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger
>> to our nation. These are facts and we simply must
>> face them."
>> --President Jimmy Carter, July 15, 1979
>
>
>Do you remember the Carter years? At all?
Yes, I do and we survived them, didn't we? I'm not so sure about
surviving the bush years, though....
>You want to do something about dependence on foreign oil, start by
>allowing exploitation of domestic oil.
A short term solution, yes. But we need to start developing long term
solutions, like, yesterday.
> Cutting off OPEC oil is goingto do nothing but accelerate the trend of
> outsourced manufacturing, refining, and everything else.
That's why we should start expoliting our resources here in the US for
the short term and start developing alternative energy sources for the
long run. But as long as a bunch of traitors like the bush family have
a strangle hold on this nation, that ain't gonna happen.
>Not to mention send inflation throughthe roof and
Ummmm, what do you think is happening with inflation now? Nevermind
the cooked numbers from the government. I mean inflation *including*
food and energy whych are going through the roof right ow.
>destroy several US industries -- travel, trucking, and
>the auto industry to name three.
The auto industry in the US is a joke now, AFAIC. Talk to an
independent trucker now and you might realise that their industry is
almost destroyed and the corporate trucking lines are soon to follow
(one company, Jevic, went under yesterday, IIRC). And as soon as
people's credit cards are maxed out and all of what income they have
goes to servicing debt, the travel industry (among others) will be
next.
All before any ban on the import of OPEC oil comes around.
necromancer
<tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2008-05-21, necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:17:53 -0500, Brent P
>><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080520/pl_nm/congress_opec_dc
>>
>>>OPEC lawyer tries to present the loss of value in the dollar and the
>>>judge says he can't use that defense.... then OPEC loses the case...
>>>and then what? Invasion of all OPEC member nations? lol.
>>
>> Was wondering just exactly *how* the justice department plans to
>> collect on that if they win the lawsuit.
>
>By the force of the US military I suppose. That's really what props up
>the dollar these days IMO.
As thin as our military is stretched these days? We can barely sustain
the two wars of aggression we are involved in now with out starting
several more; which will make us look more and more like the Roman
Empire and the British Empire the Soviet Union before us. And look at
what happened to those imperialistic organizations.....
>Iraq stopped taking dollars for oil, got invaded. Now Iran has stopped
>taking dollars for oil, and they appear to be next.
Can you blame the Iranians for not wanting to take US dollars? They
are practically worthless as it is.
--
"You can fool some of the people all the time,
and those are the ones you want to
concentrate on."
--Governor George W. Bush
Brent P
>>By the force of the US military I suppose. That's really what props up
>>the dollar these days IMO.
>
> As thin as our military is stretched these days? We can barely sustain
> the two wars of aggression we are involved in now with out starting
> several more; which will make us look more and more like the Roman
> Empire and the British Empire the Soviet Union before us. And look at
> what happened to those imperialistic organizations.....
That's the scary thing. Those in office have no clue about history and
they don't care. Their masters want the US to be broken IMO.
>>Iraq stopped taking dollars for oil, got invaded. Now Iran has stopped
>>taking dollars for oil, and they appear to be next.
> Can you blame the Iranians for not wanting to take US dollars? They
> are practically worthless as it is.
yep.
Matthew T. Russotto
necromancer <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 May 2008 14:22:26 -0500, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net
>(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article <0bm8345p74rvmckrl...@4ax.com>,
>>necromancer <newsgroup> wrote:
>>>
>>>If only we had leadership in this nation that would stand up and ban
>>>the import of OPEC oil into the US if need be.....
>>>
>>>"Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a
>>> tremendous toll on our economy and people. It's a
>>> cause of the increased inflation and unemployment we
>>> now face. This intolerable dependence on foreign oil
>>> threatens our economic independence and the very
>>> security of our nation. The energy crisis is real.
>>> It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger
>>> to our nation. These are facts and we simply must
>>> face them."
>>> --President Jimmy Carter, July 15, 1979
>>
>>
>>Do you remember the Carter years? At all?
>
>Yes, I do and we survived them, didn't we? I'm not so sure about
>surviving the bush years, though....
ROTFL. The Bush years are almost over. Where's the gas lines?
Where's the double-digit inflation and unemployment? Heard about the
misery index lately? Despite all the dire claims of recession, we
haven't even had one confirmed quarter of "negative growth" yet, let
alone two.
>>You want to do something about dependence on foreign oil, start by
>>allowing exploitation of domestic oil.
>
>A short term solution, yes. But we need to start developing long term
>solutions, like, yesterday.
If you believe oil is actually running short, then the technological
solutions are nuclear and coal -- likely a combination of both, using
more nuclear for electricial generation and converting coal to liquid
fuel for transportation. The others, including everything under
"renewable energy" are all niche "solutions" or not solutions at all.
Anyone who believes in biofuels or solar or wind as a replacement for
oil hasn't looked at the magnitude of the problem. Look at what the
small amount of biofuel development is doing to food prices _now_.
The political "solution" is nonexistent.
>> Cutting off OPEC oil is goingto do nothing but accelerate the trend of
>> outsourced manufacturing, refining, and everything else.
>
>That's why we should start expoliting our resources here in the US for
>the short term and start developing alternative energy sources for the
>long run. But as long as a bunch of traitors like the bush family have
>a strangle hold on this nation, that ain't gonna happen.
>
>>Not to mention send inflation throughthe roof and
>
>Ummmm, what do you think is happening with inflation now? Nevermind
>the cooked numbers from the government. I mean inflation *including*
>food and energy whych are going through the roof right ow.
Through the roof? Compared to the Carter years, it ain't nothing.
>>destroy several US industries -- travel, trucking, and
>>the auto industry to name three.
>
>The auto industry in the US is a joke now, AFAIC. Talk to an
>independent trucker now and you might realise that their industry is
>almost destroyed and the corporate trucking lines are soon to follow
>(one company, Jevic, went under yesterday, IIRC). And as soon as
>people's credit cards are maxed out and all of what income they have
>goes to servicing debt, the travel industry (among others) will be
>next.
>
>All before any ban on the import of OPEC oil comes around.
Maybe, but banning OPEC oil would only make it happen faster, with
zero benefit.
Matthew T. Russotto
necromancer <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 May 2008 14:00:57 -0500, Brent P
><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2008-05-21, necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:17:53 -0500, Brent P
>>><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080520/pl_nm/congress_opec_dc
>>>
>>>>OPEC lawyer tries to present the loss of value in the dollar and the
>>>>judge says he can't use that defense.... then OPEC loses the case...
>>>>and then what? Invasion of all OPEC member nations? lol.
>>>
>>> Was wondering just exactly *how* the justice department plans to
>>> collect on that if they win the lawsuit.
>>
>>By the force of the US military I suppose. That's really what props up
>>the dollar these days IMO.
>
>As thin as our military is stretched these days? We can barely sustain
>the two wars of aggression we are involved in now with out starting
>several more; which will make us look more and more like the Roman
>Empire and the British Empire the Soviet Union before us. And look at
>what happened to those imperialistic organizations.....
Rome survived longer than almost any other government in history. The
British empire merely withered away, the mother country still exists.
Brent P
>>Yes, I do and we survived them, didn't we? I'm not so sure about
>>surviving the bush years, though....
>
> ROTFL. The Bush years are almost over. Where's the gas lines?
> Where's the double-digit inflation and unemployment? Heard about the
> misery index lately? Despite all the dire claims of recession, we
> haven't even had one confirmed quarter of "negative growth" yet, let
> alone two.
Gas lines are the product of price controls. I expect those to come
shortly, probably under the next president. Double digit inflation? We
nearly have that already, just have to use the older method of
calculation. Here: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
Scroll down to annual consumer inflation. The 1980 method that showed
double digit inflation in 1980 shows almost 10% today.
The growth figures I don't have alternates for, but I don't trust them
the government's ever changing methods haven't cooked them. I wouldn't
be surprised if there is negative growth if using 1970s calculation
methods.
The inflation under Nixon and LBJ didn't hid hardest until Carter. The
results of shrub's war on credit is just getting started.
> Anyone who believes in biofuels or solar or wind as a replacement for
> oil hasn't looked at the magnitude of the problem. Look at what the
> small amount of biofuel development is doing to food prices _now_.
I believe that a good deal of the food price problem is the rest of the
world sending dollars back to buy something the USA still makes, food.
There have been some serious crop failures in other parts of the world,
like China. China has dollars.
> The political "solution" is nonexistent.
There is no political solution except to get the government out of the
way.
necromancer
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>If you believe oil is actually running short, then the technological
>solutions are nuclear and coal -- likely a combination of both, using
>more nuclear for electricial generation and converting coal to liquid
>fuel for transportation.
Whether or not oil is running short is not the only problem. There is
the other problem that we are buying about 2/3 of it or more from our
enemies.
>The others, including everything under
>"renewable energy" are all niche "solutions" or not solutions at all.
So, what's your solution? Coal may last atleast to the end of our
lifetimes, but that too will eventually be exhausted, not to mention
the pollution created. As for nuclear, another decent short term
solution, but with some nasty longterm side effects if not handled
properly.
>Anyone who believes in biofuels or solar or wind as a replacement for
>oil hasn't looked at the magnitude of the problem. Look at what the
>small amount of biofuel development is doing to food prices _now_.
What's wrong with solar and wind energy? To me the only problem is
that we arenot developing and perfecting the technology that can
expolit these sources of energy.
--
"When you can't afford the gas to drive to the job
that you are fixing to lose to pay for the house you
can't afford... That's pretty much the recession
tri-fecta..."
--Jay Leno
Brent P
> Whether or not oil is running short is not the only problem. There is
> the other problem that we are buying about 2/3 of it or more from our
> enemies.
Canada and Mexico are our enemies now?
necromancer
Not sure about Canada, but Mexico may as well be. I'm talking about
where most of our oil comes from, namely, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and
the UAE among other opec nations.
--
Breakdown of the Sept. 11 hijackers:
Saudi Arabia: 15
United Arab Emirates: 2
Egypt: 1
Lebanon: 1
(with friends like these, who needs enemies)
Brent P
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 20:30:59 -0500, Brent P
><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2008-05-21, necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Whether or not oil is running short is not the only problem. There is
>>> the other problem that we are buying about 2/3 of it or more from our
>>> enemies.
>>
>>Canada and Mexico are our enemies now?
>>
>
> Not sure about Canada, but Mexico may as well be. I'm talking about
> where most of our oil comes from, namely, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and
> the UAE among other opec nations.
Most of our imported oil comes from canada and mexico. Most of our
alaska oil goes to japan/china. Middle east oil mainly goes to china,
europe, and other places closer to it.
Eeyore
Brent P wrote:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080520/pl_nm/congress_opec_dc
>
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives overwhelmingly
> approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue
> OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set
> crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.
>
> The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran
> and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must
> follow.
>
> <...>
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> OPEC lawyer tries to present the loss of value in the dollar and the
> judge says he can't use that defense.... then OPEC loses the case...
> and then what? Invasion of all OPEC member nations? lol.
Is this some kind of joke ?
US law doesn't apply outside US borders.
Graham
Eeyore
necromancer wrote:
> As thin as our military is stretched these days? We can barely sustain
> the two wars of aggression we are involved in now with out starting
> several more; which will make us look more and more like the Roman
> Empire and the British Empire the Soviet Union before us. And look at
> what happened to those imperialistic organizations.....
In the days of the British Empire, the Army and Navy never had to fight much in the
way of wars in colonising various countries ever. Much of it was done by various
treaties.
Graham
Eeyore
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> Rome survived longer than almost any other government in history.
You mean empire.
> The British empire merely withered away, the mother country still exists.
Hardly 'withered'. We decided to give it up.
Graham
Brent P
>> The British empire merely withered away, the mother country still exists.
>
> Hardly 'withered'. We decided to give it up.
No, that was a change of form to client states. The artifically drawn
borders are in all the areas that are problems today. In fact, the US
government's CIA overthrowing Iran's government in the 1950s was to help
UK intelligence restore Iran as a client state for BP's profits. After
WW2 the US simply slowly took over management of the client states and
expanded its own empire.
Brent P
Ask that russian guy for being arrested for violating the US DMCA in
russia where what he did was perfectly legal. He broke some encryption
or something.... Weren't agents of the empire also caught kidnapping
people in Italy and elsewhere for violations of US law/war on terror
too?
Matthew T. Russotto
Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2008-05-21, Matthew T. Russotto <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>>>Yes, I do and we survived them, didn't we? I'm not so sure about
>>>surviving the bush years, though....
>>
>> ROTFL. The Bush years are almost over. Where's the gas lines?
>> Where's the double-digit inflation and unemployment? Heard about the
>> misery index lately? Despite all the dire claims of recession, we
>> haven't even had one confirmed quarter of "negative growth" yet, let
>> alone two.
>
>Gas lines are the product of price controls. I expect those to come
>shortly, probably under the next president. Double digit inflation? We
>nearly have that already, just have to use the older method of
>calculation. Here: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
That's not the older method of calculation. That's the new method of
calculation, modified by a factor the SGS people's "estimate". Said
estimate appearing suspiciously like a simple function of time.
Even assuming the SGS numbers are accurate, it hasn't reached 1980
levels.
>The growth figures I don't have alternates for, but I don't trust them
>the government's ever changing methods haven't cooked them. I wouldn't
>be surprised if there is negative growth if using 1970s calculation
>methods.
>
>The inflation under Nixon and LBJ didn't hid hardest until Carter. The
>results of shrub's war on credit is just getting started.
IMO, Carter bears responsibility for the inflation in the latter half of
his administration; it was not leftovers from Nixon or Johnson, or
even Gerald "Whip Inflation Now" Ford. Look how quickly that
inflation went away after he did, even using the Williams (SGS) figures.
>> Anyone who believes in biofuels or solar or wind as a replacement for
>> oil hasn't looked at the magnitude of the problem. Look at what the
>> small amount of biofuel development is doing to food prices _now_.
>
>I believe that a good deal of the food price problem is the rest of the
>world sending dollars back to buy something the USA still makes, food.
>There have been some serious crop failures in other parts of the world,
>like China. China has dollars.
Well, there, you see, our Machievellian overlords have everything
under control. The US has food, the world is awash in dollars to
spend on food, US farmers profit, trade deficit drops, and eventually
dollar strengthens.
(If only I believed they were really so competent as to have planned that)
>> The political "solution" is nonexistent.
>
>There is no political solution except to get the government out of the
>way.
Good luck with that.
Matthew T. Russotto
necromancer <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:08:26 -0500, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net
>(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>>
>>If you believe oil is actually running short, then the technological
>>solutions are nuclear and coal -- likely a combination of both, using
>>more nuclear for electricial generation and converting coal to liquid
>>fuel for transportation.
>
>Whether or not oil is running short is not the only problem. There is
>the other problem that we are buying about 2/3 of it or more from our
>enemies.
I didn't know Canada was an enemy. Or Mexico for that matter.
>>The others, including everything under
>>"renewable energy" are all niche "solutions" or not solutions at all.
>
>So, what's your solution? Coal may last atleast to the end of our
>lifetimes, but that too will eventually be exhausted, not to mention
>the pollution created. As for nuclear, another decent short term
>solution, but with some nasty longterm side effects if not handled
>properly.
Everything runs out (including the sun) and everything will have side
effects. Environmentalist insistence on renewable sources with no
side effects are one reason the problem is politically unsolvable.
>>Anyone who believes in biofuels or solar or wind as a replacement for
>>oil hasn't looked at the magnitude of the problem. Look at what the
>>small amount of biofuel development is doing to food prices _now_.
>
>What's wrong with solar and wind energy? To me the only problem is
>that we arenot developing and perfecting the technology that can
>expolit these sources of energy.
One problem is that solar and wind energy simply can not scale to the
levels needed to make a dent in fossil fuel consumption. As with
hydro and geothermal, there are relatively few locations in which they can be
effective. The other problem, which isn't really a problem given the
first problem, is they aren't easily transportable. And the third
problem is that if you suggest covering the desert with solar-thermal
arrays or putting up windfarms, environmentalists go batshit anyway.
Brent P
>>I believe that a good deal of the food price problem is the rest of the
>>world sending dollars back to buy something the USA still makes, food.
>>There have been some serious crop failures in other parts of the world,
>>like China. China has dollars.
>
> Well, there, you see, our Machievellian overlords have everything
> under control. The US has food, the world is awash in dollars to
> spend on food, US farmers profit, trade deficit drops, and eventually
> dollar strengthens.
You forgot the parts of waging wars in foreign lands and poorer people
in the US starving.
> (If only I believed they were really so competent as to have planned that)
It depend on what you think they want. The rest of the world out bidding
for the US food supply would be one of those unforeseen things IMO.
Matthew T. Russotto
necromancer <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 May 2008 20:30:59 -0500, Brent P
><tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2008-05-21, necromancer <55_sux@worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Whether or not oil is running short is not the only problem. There is
>>> the other problem that we are buying about 2/3 of it or more from our
>>> enemies.
>>
>>Canada and Mexico are our enemies now?
>>
>
>Not sure about Canada, but Mexico may as well be. I'm talking about
>where most of our oil comes from, namely, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and
>the UAE among other opec nations.
Canada is the #1 exporter of oil to the US. #1 in all petroleum
products by far. Saudia Arabia is #2. Mexico, which is not an enemy,
though it is an OPEC member, is #3. Nigeria is #4, followed by
Venezuela and Iraq.
Matthew T. Russotto
Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>
>> Rome survived longer than almost any other government in history.
>
>You mean empire.
I mean government, in the American sense.
>> The British empire merely withered away, the mother country still exists.
>
>Hardly 'withered'. We decided to give it up.
Withered.
Matthew T. Russotto
Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Ask that russian guy for being arrested for violating the US DMCA in
>russia where what he did was perfectly legal.
To be fair, not only were the charges against him dropped, but his employer was
found "not guilty".
necromancer
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>In article <s5893411dqpdkgltc...@4ax.com>,
>necromancer <newsgroup> wrote:
>>On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:08:26 -0500, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net
>>(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>If you believe oil is actually running short, then the technological
>>>solutions are nuclear and coal -- likely a combination of both, using
>>>more nuclear for electricial generation and converting coal to liquid
>>>fuel for transportation.
>>
>>Whether or not oil is running short is not the only problem. There is
>>the other problem that we are buying about 2/3 of it or more from our
>>enemies.
>
>I didn't know Canada was an enemy.
Yet. The way that shrub is pissing people off around the world, they
probablly will hate us in a few months. And note I said, "about 2/3
of," our oil, not all of it.
> Or Mexico for that matter.
Your own words that Mexico is an OPEC member. That sounds like an
enemy to me....
<< snip >>
>Everything runs out (including the sun) and everything will have side
>effects. Environmentalist insistence on renewable sources with no
>side effects are one reason the problem is politically unsolvable.
>
>>>Anyone who believes in biofuels or solar or wind as a replacement for
>>>oil hasn't looked at the magnitude of the problem. Look at what the
>>>small amount of biofuel development is doing to food prices _now_.
>>
>>What's wrong with solar and wind energy? To me the only problem is
>>that we arenot developing and perfecting the technology that can
>>expolit these sources of energy.
>
>One problem is that solar and wind energy simply can not scale to the
>levels needed to make a dent in fossil fuel consumption. As with
So you are saying I am full of shit for suggesting that solar and wind
can be exploited for most (if not all) our energy needs? Go back in
time to late 1800's Boston or NYC and hang around the docks for one of
the steamships arriving from the UK or France or where ever and tell a
disembarking passenger that in about 80 years or so he'll be able to
make the same trip in about 5 hours. I bet he'd tell you that you are
full of shit too.
>hydro and geothermal, there are relatively few locations in which they can be
>effective. The other problem, which isn't really a problem given the
>first problem, is they aren't easily transportable.
Electricity is easily transported. We have a whole grid of
transmission lines doing so right now. Connected to solar arrays in
places like the southwest USA with abundant sunshine and windfarms off
shore and we could generate a large portion of or electricity that way
- including for electric powered cars - which will have better battery
technology than currently available if the R&D is done to develop
them. Of course, untill we have the testicular fortitude to do so.....
>And the third
>problem is that if you suggest covering the desert with solar-thermal
>arrays or putting up windfarms, environmentalists go batshit anyway.
That's exactly what I'm suggesting - though solar arrays developed in
the future might not need quite so much land. As for the
environmentalists, tell them I said FOAD.
--
necromancer
Official Overseer Of KoOkS And Trolls In rec.autos.driving
necromancer
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>Well, there, you see, our Machievellian overlords have everything
>under control. The US has food, the world is awash in dollars to
>spend on food, US farmers profit, trade deficit drops, and eventually
>dollar strengthens.
Except that more and more US farmland is being diverted to grow corn
for ethanol, not food.
--
bush lies...
america (sic) dies...
Brent P
> So you are saying I am full of shit for suggesting that solar and wind
> can be exploited for most (if not all) our energy needs? Go back in
> time to late 1800's Boston or NYC and hang around the docks for one of
> the steamships arriving from the UK or France or where ever and tell a
> disembarking passenger that in about 80 years or so he'll be able to
> make the same trip in about 5 hours. I bet he'd tell you that you are
> full of shit too.
The anti-energy / status-quo energy lobby masking themselves as
environmentalists will stop solar and wind before they get far. They are
already have stopped some wind projects, the fight costs money even if
they aren't successful in stopping projects. Once they realize how much
area is paved with solar cells to be viable they will fight that too.
They say we should have whatever doesn't work. When it starts to work
they oppose it.
Brent P
necromancer
Careful, Brent.... The No Such Agency may relay that to the Fascist
Brotherhood, Incorporated....
--
For the benefit of the nsa, cia and other goon squadss:
suitcase nuke mall cleveland allah comes alive at midnight
george w bush antichrist incompetent boob warmonger
anthrax ebola ecoli ecommerce etrade emortgage ebankrupt
911 inside job patriot act hates freedom wtc pulled
fifty nine million americans dumb texas mexico return
Matthew T. Russotto
necromancer <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:17:58 -0500, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net
>(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article <s5893411dqpdkgltc...@4ax.com>,
>>necromancer <newsgroup> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 21 May 2008 16:08:26 -0500, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net
>>>(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you believe oil is actually running short, then the technological
>>>>solutions are nuclear and coal -- likely a combination of both, using
>>>>more nuclear for electricial generation and converting coal to liquid
>>>>fuel for transportation.
>>>
>>>Whether or not oil is running short is not the only problem. There is
>>>the other problem that we are buying about 2/3 of it or more from our
>>>enemies.
>>
>>I didn't know Canada was an enemy.
>
>Yet. The way that shrub is pissing people off around the world, they
>probablly will hate us in a few months. And note I said, "about 2/3
>of," our oil, not all of it.
And note that you're still wrong.
>> Or Mexico for that matter.
>
>Your own words that Mexico is an OPEC member. That sounds like an
>enemy to me....
If you're going to see enemies everywhere, you're worse than Bush.
The Arab countries I'll give you; the people there hate us even where
the government doesn't. Venezuela I'll give you. But not Canada or Mexico.
>>One problem is that solar and wind energy simply can not scale to the
>>levels needed to make a dent in fossil fuel consumption. As with
>
>So you are saying I am full of shit for suggesting that solar and wind
>can be exploited for most (if not all) our energy needs?
That is correct.
>Go back in time to late 1800's Boston or NYC and hang around the
>docks for one of the steamships arriving from the UK or France or
>where ever and tell a disembarking passenger that in about 80 years
>or so he'll be able to make the same trip in about 5 hours. I bet
>he'd tell you that you are full of shit too.
Non sequitur.
>>hydro and geothermal, there are relatively few locations in which they can be
>>effective. The other problem, which isn't really a problem given the
>>first problem, is they aren't easily transportable.
>
>Electricity is easily transported. We have a whole grid of
>transmission lines doing so right now. Connected to solar arrays in
>places like the southwest USA with abundant sunshine and windfarms off
>shore and we could generate a large portion of or electricity that way
>- including for electric powered cars - which will have better battery
>technology than currently available if the R&D is done to develop
>them. Of course, untill we have the testicular fortitude to do so.....
It has nothing to do with gonads. I agree you could build significant
solar generation capacity in a few places. But it would not be enough
to make up even for current fossil electricity consumption, let alone
future consumption, let alone future consumption plus additional
consumption from electric cars. And once those few places were exploited,
that's it for solar and wind, no more -- any future expansion would be
right back to fossil fuels. Same thing goes for wind.
necromancer
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>It has nothing to do with gonads. I agree you could build significant
>solar generation capacity in a few places. But it would not be enough
>to make up even for current fossil electricity consumption, let alone
>future consumption, let alone future consumption plus additional
>consumption from electric cars.
On todays technology, probablly not. But you seem to be opposed to our
even trying to develop new technology that would make solar and wind
more cost effective.
>And once those few places were exploited,
>that's it for solar and wind, no more -- any future expansion would be
>right back to fossil fuels. Same thing goes for wind.
Keep your head in the sand if you wish, but when the oil runs out - or
your, "friends," turnoff the taps - don't come crying to me.
Matthew T. Russotto
necromancer <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 May 2008 16:05:48 -0500, russ...@grace.speakeasy.net
>(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>>
>>It has nothing to do with gonads. I agree you could build significant
>>solar generation capacity in a few places. But it would not be enough
>>to make up even for current fossil electricity consumption, let alone
>>future consumption, let alone future consumption plus additional
>>consumption from electric cars.
>
>On todays technology, probablly not. But you seem to be opposed to our
>even trying to develop new technology that would make solar and wind
>more cost effective.
Greenies talked about solar and wind back in the 1970s. Nothing has
materialized that changes the basic equation. And there's no reason
to expect that it will.
Brent P
>>On todays technology, probablly not. But you seem to be opposed to our
>>even trying to develop new technology that would make solar and wind
>>more cost effective.
> Greenies talked about solar and wind back in the 1970s. Nothing has
> materialized that changes the basic equation. And there's no reason
> to expect that it will.
Wind's biggest problem right now is.... the environmentalists. These
'greenies' are useful idiots with a leadership that is more interested
in power over people's lives. I think the idea of wind and/or solar that
actually works scares the bejebus out of that leadership. It would mean
that people could keep using energy and greenies couldn't say squat
about it. So they now attack wind power as being ugly and chopping up
birds.... because if these wind farms get built better methods will be
found, experience will make people better at it... and then the people
leading the greenies won't be able to tell others how to live.
IMO, If an alien being came down in a flying saucer and gave those
behind the enviromental leadership some sort of zero point energy source
with all the engineering drawings and manufacturing techniques required
for 21st century humans to build millions upon millions of them needing
nothing of greater precision than what is found in a Chinese toy
factory and one big enough to power a car cost $10.... well... I think
that they thank the alien and then take the device and all the plans and
destroy them out in the desert somewhere. It would be as if someone
handed Jesse Jackson a magical cure for all racism on the planet. It
would be kept from the world because a cure for the problems would
put them out of a job and they would have no power and no relevance any
more.
Matthew T. Russotto
Brent P <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 2008-05-24, Matthew T. Russotto <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>>>On todays technology, probablly not. But you seem to be opposed to our
>>>even trying to develop new technology that would make solar and wind
>>>more cost effective.
>
>> Greenies talked about solar and wind back in the 1970s. Nothing has
>> materialized that changes the basic equation. And there's no reason
>> to expect that it will.
>
>Wind's biggest problem right now is.... the environmentalists.
That's true, but even if they went away, we'd run out of viable wind
sites long before they made a dent in fossil-produced electricity.
>IMO, If an alien being came down in a flying saucer and gave those
>behind the enviromental leadership some sort of zero point energy source
>with all the engineering drawings and manufacturing techniques required
>for 21st century humans to build millions upon millions of them needing
>nothing of greater precision than what is found in a Chinese toy
>factory and one big enough to power a car cost $10.... well... I think
>that they thank the alien and then take the device and all the plans and
>destroy them out in the desert somewhere.
Yep. And if the alien gave the plans to someone with the ability and
will to build it, the environmentalists would immediately move to stop
it on the theory that tapping the zero-point energy would destroy the
universe. No facts, mind you, but they'd invoke the precautionary
principle and say that if the builder (or aliens) couldn't prove
beyond all possible doubt that it wouldn't destroy the universe, it
must be assumed that it would.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
The environmentalists would just claim that giving the public access to
'free' transportation would just encourage urban sprawl, allow low cost
shipping to allow production to be moved to unregulated locations, etc.
Public transportation is a powerful tool to get people to live, work and
shop where you want them to. Specifically, where your buddies have
invested in real estate development first.
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.