Government stimulus

Catawba · Apr 25, 2011

cpwill said:
The U.S. has the largest Oil Reserves in the World.

how about this for a solution. maybe we should, oh, i dunno, create jobs here in America by tapping our own natural resources, just like we expect everyone else to do.

That represents 3.65 billion gallons of recoverable oil. We currently import that much in one year!
snopes.com: Bakken Formation

That is your solution???

Catawba · Apr 25, 2011

Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't care for war in other countries.
I much prefer trade.

No one is being raked over a barrel, you can always buy an electric car.

If one can afford it, that's great! Too bad the military didn't think of that before they issued their warning last year on peak oil. Or before, we invaded Iraq to make it safe for the return of Western oil for the first time in over 3 decades.

Harry Guerrilla · Apr 25, 2011

What if...? said:
I was speaking more in relative terms regarding excessive absolutes in our discussions.

I understand where you're coming from and often agree with you to some degree.

I'm just trying to point out where the disconnects are occurring between the two basic ideologies here.

And what I'm seeing is a rejection by the left of some on the rights insistence on black and white statements, while acknowledging their point to some extent.

And a refusal to concede anything by some on the right, accompanied by derision at the inability of the lefties to grasp what they are being told.

And almost always it seems that those on the left say something like"Yes, but you also have to take this into account". At which point the original argument is repeated as if the leftie didn't understand the first time. Leftie tries again, often making every apparent effort to communicate, only to be flatly rejected. And ridiculed. Round and round.

I get excessively combative, because it seems obvious we have to find common ground to deal with the real problems we're facing, and "our way or the highway" is too often the refrain from the right.

So I mention govt funded research as a counter to the absolute, "government doesn't create jobs", because government funding does often lead to job creation.

And while business often can do things more efficiently than govt, it won't do some things because they are not profitable enough, or the research is inherently too expensive. Thats where govt can play a role.

I would really like to see a little more qualification of statements.

"A is a result of B" is a much harder starting point than "A is primarily a result of B"

Absolutes are starting positions for politicians, not discussions.

And compromise isn't defeat. In fact, at this point in time, refusal to consider compromise may cost us a great deal.:2wave:

There are some absolutes in this world in my opinion.

One of which, is that government is terrible when it comes to influencing the economy.

When it comes to research, most of the government funding is crowding out the private investment.
You'll see that prior to research grants and the like, that people as independents were creating things left and right.
People who had no formal education in the fields they created in, notable example is Samuel Morse.

He was a painter, that only became interested in near instant communications, when his wife became ill and by the time he reached her she died.
He wanted to solve the problem of delayed information transmitting.

We don't see this anymore and assume all important research should come from XYZ university funded by government ABC grant.

I think Hayak best explains this with, "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men, how little they really know about what they can imagine, they can design."

It's why I'll always be a free markets guy, it makes much more sense logically.

cpwill · Apr 25, 2011

Catawba said:
That represents 3.65 billion gallons of recoverable oil. We currently import that much in one year!
snopes.com: Bakken Formation

That is your solution???

Bakken is one formation; according to your own link another such (the Green River) has been estimated at about 1.5 Trillion; though only 800Bn was estimated to be recoverable. and on top of that we also need to open up our West Coast, Alaska, near waters in the Gulf, and the East Coast to drilling. in addition, we need to allow the building of more refineries.

we are the only nation currently stupid enough not to tap our own natural resources, and it is costing us. we have huge untapped resources here, and in a time seemingly laggardly growth for the next decade plus high unemployment and rising energy prices, it makes no sense not to engage in an activity that would help with all three of those problems.

garb · Apr 25, 2011

Redress said:
No, obviously not true. However, the driving force for employment is not tax rates, but demand for products and services. A hypothetical company with enough employees to meet demand but a large profit is not going to hire more employees, while a company that is losing money but not able to meet demand will probably perforce still have to hire more employees. Neither situation is entirely likely, and the second one is in fact fairly uncommon, however they illustrate the point. Please do not read more into my words than what I am actually saying.

I don't see how this is an argument for higher tax rates. I'm not going to disagree that tax rates are not the driving force for businesses hiring employees or making other improvements to their business. What I'm arguing is that it sometimes prevents companies from doing something to make themselves more competitive, especially in a hostile economy in which we currently reside. It's like high gas prices. People will still put enough gas in their car for endeavors they view as necessary such as work, school, and possibly church, but you're not going to see someone who is barely able to fill their tank buying a new car or house anytime soon. On the same note, businesses who are barely making it aren't going to make improvements with high tax rates, they're just going to do what they have to in order to survive.

Catawba · Apr 25, 2011

cpwill said:
Bakken is one formation;

Yes, optimally, enough to replace imports for one year.

according to your own link another such (the Green River) has been estimated at about 1.5 Trillion; though only 800Bn was estimated to be recoverable.

That is a little over two years of oil that we import, and it was noted that that depends on economic and technological concerns. They add that even with new drilling techniques, as of February of this year, it is still only producing about a half million barrels a day.

It further notes that even under "high growth assumptions" an oil shale production level of 1 million barrels per day (about 10% of what the US imports daily) is probably more than 20 years in the future.

And they talk further about the huge costs for water, energy and environmental degradation that must somehow be addressed to make it feasible.

With the increase in world demand in the next 20 years, not only is this not the answer to our domestic peak oil that we passed in 1971, it is likely to not even make a dent in the world oil market in 20 years.

What else you got?

and on top of that we also need to open up our West Coast, Alaska, near waters in the Gulf, and the East Coast to drilling.

We are producing more oil than we have in the last decade, but that doesn't mean that we are going to abandon our concern for the environment that we all depend on for our livelihoods to try feed our oil addition for another year of two. 40 years of lack of planning and short-term greed does not now an emergency make that we have to forfeit the environment to address.

in addition, we need to allow the building of more refineries.

How do you force a company to build refineries they don't need. The oil companies have not felt the investment was wise given so little supply of oil in this country.

we are the only nation currently stupid enough not to tap our own natural resources, and it is costing us. we have huge untapped resources here, and in a time seemingly laggardly growth for the next decade plus high unemployment and rising energy prices, it makes no sense not to engage in an activity that would help with all three of those problems.

Not possible given that we passed peak oil in this country in 1971. Most other countries have as well. That is why we are approaching world peak oil, and why the price for that imported oil keeps going up. You can't magically make something appear where it is not. What we need to be doing before oil becomes prohibitively expensive is to develop alternatives unless we want the rest of the world to continue the jump they have on us in this vital area.

What if...? · Apr 25, 2011

Harry Guerrilla said:
There are some absolutes in this world in my opinion.

One of which, is that government is terrible when it comes to influencing the economy.

When it comes to research, most of the government funding is crowding out the private investment.
You'll see that prior to research grants and the like, that people as independents were creating things left and right.
People who had no formal education in the fields they created in, notable example is Samuel Morse.

He was a painter, that only became interested in near instant communications, when his wife became ill and by the time he reached her she died.
He wanted to solve the problem of delayed information transmitting.

We don't see this anymore and assume all important research should come from XYZ university funded by government ABC grant.

I think Hayak best explains this with, "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men, how little they really know about what they can imagine, they can design."

It's why I'll always be a free markets guy, it makes much more sense logically.

I don't see any hindrance to private development in govt research, the latter just can have other priorities.

For example, pharmaceutical companies do research for drugs they can sell at profit. Less common conditions can fall by the wayside, as well as for-profit companies focusing on treatments rather than cures.

I get your conviction, but markets are constantly being manipulated now, with regulation. And I'm pretty sure laissez-faire doesn't actually work in actual practice, right?

Monopolies and interbusiness warfare and whatnot.

In my experience, extremes are rarely good.

Perfect order is exactly as bad as perfect chaos for the opposite reasons.

And I don't see much in wealths track record that gives me any confidence that my life WILL be improved if they are given full free rein. Quite the contrary in fact.:2wave:

And I always understood that control of the money supply was reserved to the federal govt, which would seem to me to mean the Founders believed the central govt should have its hand on the brake, as it were.

I understand that the issues are complex, but I have never understood why people with a Constitutional bent aren't more vocal on the two fiscal elements we have TOTALLY abandoned: central control of the money supply, and a "hard" currency.

My grasp of economics is not perfect, but aren't "bubbles" a side effect of private control of a fiat currency? At least in creating the conditions where they occur?:2wave:

cpwill · Apr 25, 2011

Catawba said:
Yes, optimally, enough to replace imports for one year.

which is impressive, considering it's only one formation. Besides, I'm not interested in replacing imports; I'm interested in creating American jobs, boosting the American economy, increasing government revenues, and increasing the Oil Supply in such a manner as to reduce OPEC's control over the industry. If we keep buying from Canada (our largest importer), I'm fine with that.

That is a little over two years of oil that we import

i thought 3.5 Billion was how much we import a year?

now, i took the college-math-for-dummies course, but it seems to me that 3.5 + 3.5 < 800. Just sayin....

and it was noted that that depends on economic and technological concerns

which are being solved even as we speak (type).

It further notes that even under "high growth assumptions" an oil shale production level of 1 million barrels per day (about 10% of what the US imports daily) is probably more than 20 years in the future.

that's awesome. a single source can replace 10% of our imports. I cannot tell you how happy that thought makes me.

gosh, added into drilling off of both coasts, Alaska, and the Gulf... wow, that's alot of oil.

With the increase in world demand in the next 20 years, not only is this not the answer to our domestic peak oil that we passed in 1971, it is likely to not even make a dent in the world oil market in 20 years.

you are right that demand is going up. which makes oil more valuable. explain to me, again, why we don't want to take advantage of a resource that we have that is guaranteed to go up in price?

We are producing more oil than we have in the last decade

thanks to the Bush Administration, yes. and we need to put that on turbo.

How do you force a company to build refineries they don't need. The oil companies have not felt the investment was wise given so little supply of oil in this country.

so little? we have the largest reserves in the world, man. it's the regulatory burden that keeps us from building new refinerys - everyone has NIMBY syndrome.

Not possible given that we passed peak oil in this country in 1971. Most other countries have as well. That is why we are approaching world peak oil, and why the price for that imported oil keeps going up.

price jumps with world news and moves generally upward as demand increases. "peak oil" theories have nothing to do with it.

1971 :lol: want me to waste another 3 minutes with Google and demonstrate to you how much reserves have expanded since 1971?

You can't magically make something appear where it is not. What we need to be doing before oil becomes prohibitively expensive is to develop alternatives unless we want the rest of the world to continue the jump they have on us in this vital area.

1. if the world wants to waste the resources hammering out the bugs before the thing becomes profitable, let them. If Spain wants to destroy chunks of it's economy and hike unemployment in vain pursuit of "green jobs", then that's their call, let them. If they ever manage to come up with something, we can then buy it from them, take the design, reverse engineer it, make it better, and sell it ourselves. The Japanese were working on miniaturizing nuclear before the Fukushima disaster - I hope they either continue to do so, or are far enough along that we can capitalize on their research and design.

2. the rest of the world is exploiting their oil. because they are smarter than we are. Go tell Brazil or China not to drill - they will laugh in your face and inquire if you have been taking recreational drugs to suggest such a thing.

3. if oil ever becomes prohibitively expensive, then the market will respond to the potential profit by providing alternatives which are cheaper. probably eventually it will whether or not oil changes in price. Perhaps eventually some genius will give us "Back To The Future" engines which run on banana peels and paper wrappers. but right now oil is the linchpin of our economy in a thousand ways, and it's plentiful, and it's still relatively cheap. My point here is that we have the ability to make it more plentiful and cheaper, and do so in a way that boosts our economy, our ability to conduct foreign policy, and government revenues at a time when we desperately need them. and we are stupid when we do not do so.

Catawba · Apr 26, 2011

[QUOTE="cpwill, post: 1059434284, member: 9188"]which is impressive, considering it's only one formation. Besides, I'm not interested in replacing imports; I'm interested in creating American jobs, boosting the American economy, increasing government revenues, and increasing the Oil Supply in such a manner as to reduce OPEC's control over the industry. If we keep buying from Canada (our largest importer), I'm fine with that. i thought 3.5 Billion was how much we import a year? now, i took the college-math-for-dummies course, but it seems to me that 3.5 + 3.5 < 800. Just sayin.... which are being solved even as we speak (type). that's awesome. a [i]single source[/i] can replace [i]10%[/i] of our imports. I cannot tell you how happy that thought makes me. gosh, added into drilling off of both coasts, Alaska, and the Gulf... wow, that's alot of oil. you are right that demand is going up. which makes oil more valuable. explain to me, again, why we don't want to take advantage of a resource that we [i]have[/i] that is [i]guaranteed[/i] to go [i]up[/i] in price? thanks to the Bush Administration, yes. and we need to put that on turbo. so little? we have the largest reserves in the [i]world[/i], man. it's the [i]regulatory burden[/i] that keeps us from building new refinerys - everyone has NIMBY syndrome. price jumps with world news and moves generally upward as demand increases. "peak oil" theories have nothing to do with it. 1971 :lol: want me to waste another 3 minutes with Google and demonstrate to you how much reserves have [i]expanded[/i] since 1971? 1. if the world wants to waste the resources hammering out the bugs before the thing becomes profitable, let them. If Spain wants to destroy chunks of it's economy and hike unemployment in vain pursuit of "green jobs", then that's their call, let them. If they ever manage to come up with something, we can then buy it from them, take the design, reverse engineer it, make it better, and sell it ourselves. The Japanese were working on miniaturizing nuclear before the Fukushima disaster - I hope they either continue to do so, or are far enough along that we can capitalize on their research and design. 2. the rest of the world is exploiting their oil. [i]because they are smarter than we are[/i]. Go tell Brazil or China not to drill - they will laugh in your face and inquire if you have been taking recreational drugs to suggest such a thing. 3. if oil ever becomes prohibitively expensive, then the market will respond to the potential profit by providing alternatives which are cheaper. probably eventually it will whether or not oil changes in price. Perhaps eventually some genius will give us "Back To The Future" engines which run on banana peels and paper wrappers. but right now oil is the linchpin of our economy in a thousand ways, and it's plentiful, and it's still relatively cheap. My point here is that we have the ability to make it [i]more[/i] plentiful and [i]cheaper[/i], and do so in a way that boosts our economy, our ability to conduct foreign policy, [i]and[/i] government revenues at a time when we desperately need them. [i]and we are stupid when we do not do so[/i].[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/PU200611_Fig1.png[/IMG]

Peak oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

cpwill · Apr 26, 2011

well hey, lookit that - production keeps increasing!

oh, but it's predicted to fall..... based on the notion that no other reserves will ever be discovered, and technology that allows us to rehit reserves we closed earlier will never be developed....

...gosh, it seems so odd that they would keep predicting that production will fall, yet production keeps rising.... yet people still believe them when they scream that production will fall, despite the fact that we have the ability to increase it with the legal snap of a finger.....

....anywho I couldn't care less.

because it makes no difference whatsoever to the benefits of drilling here at home. you might as well argue against solar energy because the sun will run out in a mere few billion years.

Harry Guerrilla · Apr 26, 2011

What if...? said:
I don't see any hindrance to private development in govt research, the latter just can have other priorities.

For example, pharmaceutical companies do research for drugs they can sell at profit. Less common conditions can fall by the wayside, as well as for-profit companies focusing on treatments rather than cures.

If something is profitable, someone will sell it.
Not all drug companies operate on the same wavelength.
So if one decides to sell treatments, another will decide to sell cures.

Who wouldn't want to be the guy/company that cures cancer?
And just because you cure that instance of it, doesn't meant that it goes away forever.

Government money towards research displaces more efficient private allocations towards research.

What if...? said:
I get your conviction, but markets are constantly being manipulated now, with regulation. And I'm pretty sure laissez-faire doesn't actually work in actual practice, right?

Monopolies and interbusiness warfare and whatnot.

In my experience, extremes are rarely good.

Perfect order is exactly as bad as perfect chaos for the opposite reasons.

When you do some serious digging into monopolies and "laissez-faire" economics you'll find that most, if not all monopolies develop from government privilege and not because of natural capitalist markets.

One arguable exception could be DeBeers but they are no longer a monopoly.
So it shows that someone will find a competitive solution to end them.
No monopoly can last forever.

What if...? said:
And I don't see much in wealths track record that gives me any confidence that my life WILL be improved if they are given full free rein. Quite the contrary in fact.:2wave:

The "track records" we learn about are half truths or blatant falsehoods.
It's hard to give a good example but if you could be more specific I can.

What if...? said:
And I always understood that control of the money supply was reserved to the federal govt, which would seem to me to mean the Founders believed the central govt should have its hand on the brake, as it were.

I understand that the issues are complex, but I have never understood why people with a Constitutional bent aren't more vocal on the two fiscal elements we have TOTALLY abandoned: central control of the money supply, and a "hard" currency.

My grasp of economics is not perfect, but aren't "bubbles" a side effect of private control of a fiat currency? At least in creating the conditions where they occur?:2wave:

Most free marketeers hate the current manipulation of the money supply.
It's 2 fold though, one comes from The Fed and the other comes from government spending on their various projects, from Medicare to bridges.

If you notice something though, the Fed is partially private and a monopoly.
They couldn't get that way without government privilege.

Bubbles are typically a condition of easy credit combined with industry favoritism through legislation.
All it takes after that is for people to realize the at first easy profit and for the rest to jump on board.

Catawba · Apr 26, 2011

cpwill said:
well hey, lookit that - production keeps increasing!

In the US, production hasn't been as much as consumption since 1971.

And note the dates when half of the other oil producing nations passed peak oil:

Dezaad · Apr 26, 2011

Stimulus helps the economy during recession, and hurts the economy during growth.

cpwill · Apr 26, 2011

Catawba said:
In the US, production hasn't been as much as consumption since 1971.

yeah. again. we stupidly decided to cut off our production. and again, i don't want to produce 100% of the oil we consume - that's not the goal. boosting production, GDP, employment, revenue, and lowering energy prices is.

And note the dates when half of the other oil producing nations passed peak oil

i'm thinking this chart doesn't have the ability to predict the future any more than anyone else.

CompSciGuy · Apr 26, 2011

Depends on how it's spent. I'm more down with building a high speed rail system than giving money to corporations who turn around and use it for fancy trips and bonuses. I was not against a huge stimulus plan, but it was so terribly mis-managed.

Hicup · Apr 26, 2011

garb said:
So you're saying that capitalism can operate effectively with little or no capital? Not trying to be a smart***, I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from, becuase your position really seems self-contradictory.

His position would be somewhat accurate if he were only referring to manufacturing jobs, and even then, it isn't correct unless reworked..

he has never owned a business, clearly??

When things are made, they need to be sold to someone, just look at Apple's success. Demand is thus manufactured, and in-turn has the effect of increasing manufacturing jobs to keep up. Redress is right if the model he relies on is the current system. Problem is that it doesn't work that way. Demand isn't something that manufacturers create, or affect, it begins always at the consumer level, and that is accimplished by salesmen, and through marketing.

Tim-

What if...? · Apr 26, 2011

cpwill said:
Bakken is one formation; according to your own link another such (the Green River) has been estimated at about 1.5 Trillion; though only 800Bn was estimated to be recoverable. and on top of that we also need to open up our West Coast, Alaska, near waters in the Gulf, and the East Coast to drilling. in addition, we need to allow the building of more refineries.

we are the only nation currently stupid enough not to tap our own natural resources, and it is costing us. we have huge untapped resources here, and in a time seemingly laggardly growth for the next decade plus high unemployment and rising energy prices, it makes no sense not to engage in an activity that would help with all three of those problems.

Actually, according to my friend who is doing a lot of business in China, China uses NONE of its own natural resources if possible.

The logic is that eventually these things are going to run out, and then China will still have most of its own resources intact. Giving them an inherent advantage in the fierce competition that will certainly accompany these shortages.

Good news though. Evidently they decided not to be overwhelmed by angry peasants and included them in the general economic boom. He says a couple more increases in the minimum wage over there combined with skyrocketing transportation costs should greatly reduce the incentive to offshore manufacturing.

Maybe some of those jobs WILL come back.:2wave:

Catawba · Apr 26, 2011

cpwill said:
yeah. again. we stupidly decided to cut off our production. and again, i don't want to produce 100% of the oil we consume - that's not the goal. boosting production, GDP, employment, revenue, and lowering energy prices is.

Click to expand...

Thank you for finally admitting we passed peal oil in this country in 1971.

i'm thinking this chart doesn't have the ability to predict the future any more than anyone else.

Click to expand...

Its not predicting the future, it is being aware of the bell curve in oil production and the fact that the world is getting close to having more demand than supply, just as we did here in this country in 1971.

garb · Apr 27, 2011

Dezaad said:
Stimulus helps the economy during recession, and hurts the economy during growth.

How do you figure?

cpwill · Apr 28, 2011

Catawba said:
Thank you for finally admitting we passed peal oil in this country in 1971.

nope. but it is irrelevant.

Its not predicting the future, it is being aware of the bell curve in oil production and the fact that the world is getting close to having more demand than supply, just as we did here in this country in 1971.

gee wiz, then good thing for us we're sitting on the worlds' largest energy supply, eh? We will be able to take advantage of rising demand to boost our economy.

Catawba · Apr 28, 2011

cpwill said:
gee wiz, then good thing for us we're sitting on the worlds' largest energy supply, eh? We will be able to take advantage of rising demand to boost our economy.

Proof of this mystery supply? You do realize that Peak oil does not mean the end of oil, it means the end of cheap oil. Because your mystery supply of oil doesn't seem to be having any effect on lowering oil prices that I have noticed. Perhaps you should call the oil companies and the military and let them know about it so they can retract their warning that peak oil may occur as soon as 2015.

cpwill · Apr 28, 2011

Catawba said:
Proof of this mystery supply?

Congressional Research Service: The United States of America Has the Largest Combined Energy Reserves in the World

Catawba · Apr 28, 2011

What if...? said:
Actually, according to my friend who is doing a lot of business in China, China uses NONE of its own natural resources if possible.

The logic is that eventually these things are going to run out, and then China will still have most of its own resources intact. Giving them an inherent advantage in the fierce competition that will certainly accompany these shortages.

Great plan, but long-term thinking has not been a part of the US energy plan since 1980. We do do much better with short-term greed which is why China is gaining on the US. :sun

Catawba · Apr 28, 2011

cpwill said:
Congressional Research Service: The United States of America Has the Largest Combined Energy Reserves in the World

Does moving the goal post to gas mean you have given up trying to disprove the US Military's public warning that we are approaching peak oil? Do you have a source to link that disprove's the US military claim?

On to your new goal post:

U.S. Forecasts 42% Jump in LNG Imports in 2010, Says Supply May Go Higher

"U.S. imports of liquefied natural gas may rise 42 percent in 2010 to approximately 1.76 billion cubic feet per day, the Energy Department forecast today in its monthly Short-Term Energy Outlook.

The latest estimate for 2010 imports was 2.2 percent lower than the previous forecast. The department’s Energy Information Administration last month predicted imports of 1.8 billion cubic feet per day.

“While EIA currently expects U.S. LNG imports to increase by about 0.5 Bcf/d this year over last, the failure of global demand to keep pace with increased global supply could lead to even higher U.S. LNG imports than currently forecast,” the department said in the report. "

cpwill · Apr 28, 2011

Catawba said:
Great plan, but long-term thinking has not been a part of the US energy plan since 1980. We do do much better with short-term greed which is why China is gaining on the US. :sun

actually i'd like to see some documentation of the claim that China doesn't take advantage of her natural resources.

but you are correct, we haven't had a very smart energy policy for decades.

time to start building new refineries, drilling off both coasts, and in Alaska to remedy that failure.

Government stimulus

?

It helps the economy.

It hurts the economy.

I don't know.

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

New member

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Member

Disappointed Evolutionist

New member

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist