|
"Guess what this liberal will be all about?" (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
What do you know about "stupidity"? You've been applauding bush for 7 and a half years.
Choose your adjectives more wisely.
Things we do NOT need:
A right-wing crazy like yourself using adjectives like "liberal" in a negative sense, in order to bolster your own failing party's lack of integrity.
Bring on the PROGRESSIVES, please. We need to bury this guy and the verbal fundamentalist poison he spreads.
it, I'm fed up. |
somebody call Shibbster a WHAAAAmbulance |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by guerra-monstru
BIO is worse because the energy output isn't the same as oil. There is nothing comparabale to oil as an energy source. Im sorry to say that but understand that I have a Bachelor and masters in Biochemistry. I should know what I am talking about better than what most people believe. If you look at Brazil and the reason why they are capable of having sugar as their alternative to oil you will see that it isn't really working. As it costs Brazilians more money a year to fill up. |
i have to take you for your word. i don't dispute that currently oil is more economically efficient as an energy source; clearly, that's the reason it is our primary source of energy. however, my point about BIO, which i may not have made clear, is that we have not embraced it so that we could more efficiently produce it. just in the past year, researchers from carnegie mellon have reduced production costs for corn ethanol by 11 percent. additionally, you can hardly say that BIO is worse when you factor in all the costs of oil, including political and environmental costs. I would rather pay more economically to reduce the political and environmental costs. the problem with valuing BIO against oil is that economic costs are easy to quantify while the political and environmental costs of BIO versus Oil is not easily quantified. furthermore, by coddling oil we are precluding the opportunity to reduce the economic cost of producing these fuels more efficiently. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
i have to take you for your word. i don't dispute that currently oil is more economically efficient as an energy source; clearly, that's the reason it is our primary source of energy. however, my point about BIO, which i may not have made clear, is that we have not embraced it so that we could more efficiently produce it. just in the past year, researchers from carnegie mellon have reduced production costs for corn ethanol by 11 percent. additionally, you can hardly say that BIO is worse when you factor in all the costs of oil, including political and environmental costs. I would rather pay more economically to reduce the political and environmental costs. the problem with valuing BIO against oil is that economic costs are easy to quantify while the political and environmental costs of BIO versus Oil is not easily quantified. furthermore, by coddling oil we are precluding the opportunity to reduce the economic cost of producing these fuels more efficiently. |
It's our primary energy source because our species happened to grasp pressurization (through coal) first, and the obvious makeup of blast-based engines followed.
Things could have gone any direction; still can, but we're stuck on an idea, and a capitalism teetering on the tip of a solvent-based pin. |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by guerra-monstru
You know this might just be me since I live in a foreign country. But I have always heard that the US has the largest reserve of oil and Im not talking about shale. Perhaps the reason why the Americans keep on using other countries oil is to make them and the rest of the world dependent on American oil once they run out of oil to export? |
Had.
Texas, like Mexico, is drying up.
The Chinese and Russians might be using the tactic you are describing, and wisely so. The west of China and the East of Russia are vastly unexplored. When the world starts fighting over resources it's much better to be defending them then trying to steal them. |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
 |
So?
Why does this seem to bug you so much?
Shouldn't people control thier own resources? Isn't government the best way we've come up with as a proxy for "the will of the people"?
I agree with jerZ, getting away from oil is the best thing any country can do. The faster the better.
The problems seem to be building up so much so that draconian measures are likely to apear sooner or later. Things like cutting fuel consumption to public transport and the transport of goods is not completely unlikely right now. It's just a matter of time before someone suggests that. Or maybe fuel rationing. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| What a pile of hore all this is. There is no oil or gas shortage causing the current high prices. What is causing the current high prices is commodities investors artifically propping up the prices through speculative investment in oil. To make things even worse, now even more purchasing is being done by hedge, investment and pension funds which will only make the situation worse. The price of crude oil has nearly doubled in the last year even though oil inventories are ample, there has been no disruption in supplies, and petroleum demand in the United States has recently leveled off and now even decreased. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
What a pile of hore all this is. There is no oil or gas shortage causing the current high prices. What is causing the current high prices is commodities investors artifically propping up the prices through speculative investment in oil. To make things even worse, now even more purchasing is being done by hedge, investment and pension funds which will only make the situation worse. The price of crude oil has nearly doubled in the last year even though oil inventories are ample, there has been no disruption in supplies, and petroleum demand in the United States has recently leveled off and now even decreased. |
if those investors are propping up the prices and it doesn't reflect real use supply/demand equilibrium, those investors will eventually realize a loss because no matter what is currently driving the price, the price will always resort to that which a consumer will pay to use the commodity. speculative prices can't remain indefinitely, see current housing market. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
if those investors are propping up the prices and it doesn't reflect real use supply/demand equilibrium, those investors will eventually realize a loss because no matter what is currently driving the price, the price will always resort to that which a consumer will pay to use the commodity. speculative prices can't remain indefinitely, see current housing market. |
That would be the case if the oil/gas market was a free market, which it is not. They operate on "because we can" pricing, because we need gas and they charge whatever the they want because they can. We as consumers have no choice, if the price of gas hit $8 a gallon tomorrow we would have to pay it because we are dependent on our cars. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
That would be the case if the oil/gas market was a free market, which it is not. They operate on "because we can" pricing, because we need gas and they charge whatever the they want because they can. We as consumers have no choice, if the price of gas hit $8 a gallon tomorrow we would have to pay it because we are dependent on our cars. |
now you aren't separating speculators from suppliers. if, as you say, speculation is driving the price, the speculators will exit the market when they realize that the purchased commodity can not sell for the cost incurred. whether it is a free market is irrelevant in this case because they aren't really controlling supply. speculators can't increase or decrease supply, all they can do is close out a position before delivery is required. Once the speculator actually takes delivery and decides to sit on inventory, then that would come into play, but that is not the nature of futures speculation.
as to the free market issue - i've addressed this many times before, however, if oil wasn't a free market and the companies could charge whatever they wanted, they would increase the price even more. In fact, oil companies should charge more because you fools continue to pay for it. Why shouldn't they earn more money? You wouldn't sell yourself short for the benefit of others, why should they?
I admit that the oil market isn't as free as other markets, but it is still subject to the laws of supply and demand. The price elasticity of demand for oil, while not as sensitive as other commodities, is still present. If oil was $10 a gallon, you would see significant demand fall off, plus huge lifestyle changes. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
just to point out the ludicrous understanding of americans in regards to political theory-
"Guess what this liberal will be all about?"
how on earth are they are "liberal" if theyre a "socialist" ? the two are mutually exclusive in case you didn't realise. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
just to point out the ludicrous understanding of americans in regards to political theory-
"Guess what this liberal will be all about?"
how on earth are they are "liberal" if theyre a "socialist" ? the two are mutually exclusive in case you didn't realise. |
i'm quoting her, dickmunch. watch the damn video |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i'm quoting her, dickmunch |
hahaha. yes, i did watch the video. but since she's supposedly a socialist she can't be a liberal. that's just fact. |
|
|
|
|
