Reply With Quote
If you don't like it, do something about it.
I don't care what side you're on, the greener side with solar and windmills on every house and yard, or 'drill here and drill now'.
THE issue is the trade imbalance. The last year we were in the black with trade was 1975. I don't care what we make or produce but oil is moot. It's not about oil. It's about buying more than we sell. And that , has come to a head.
I ask you this. How do we compete with .50 an hour labor in China ?
I'll tell you we can't.
Tariffs and protectionism. That, and we build a load of nuclear power plants, like France.
But I don't care how we do it, but we need to balance the books. THAT is what is killing us.
If you don't like it, do something about it.
What percent of our current account deficit is caused by oil imports?
I make dildas. Your mom is my biggest customer.
That is moot. I agree with the drill here drill now philosophy simply because it means we buy less. Oil is product. We have oil.
We'll never become energy independant, if that is the goal, with oil. But that's not the goal. The goal is to produce more of various things, that we can sell to other countries, that equals or exceeds what we buy from other countries.
What that is, is totally irrelevant.
???
(edit)
My initial response was based on this being directed at me.
It wasn't. So I simply deleted my own errant post.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 06-23-2010 at 05:49 PM.
We already have almost twice the number of nuclear reactors of France.
Wasn't talking to you.
Data to back it up? The last time we had a trade surplus was 1973. 1975 we were in the red. It's steadily increased every year since.
Oil is fungible.
If we drill more, or spend money on drilling more, we essentially help the Chinese government subsidize their citizen's use of it.
If you like, I can get the guy with the PhD in economics who does consulting with oil companies to explain that in great depth, although that is probably pearls before swine, IMO.
So your magic wand here is to build nukes and hope we'll eventually sell more oil than we use?
We simply don't make as much stuff anymore.
Nope. We buy less. Nuke or coal, pick your poison.
Botton line is we need to sell more stuff than we buy.
What's your answer ?
and oil is becoming an increasing large percentage of that.
The ONLY way to get us to import less oil is to USE less oil, unless you use government restrictions or regulations limiting the ability of the free market to import it.
You cannot drill your way to energy independence, because, as I stated, oil is fungible.
Is that a new buzzword for 'commidity' ? Yes, oil is a commidity. So what. So is coal and corn and bacon.
That has zip to do with . We spend more money buying stuff from other people. As a result, we owe a lot of people money. What do we make that other want in the quan y necessary to balance our trade ?
False dillemma.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156366
and
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156620
get reading.
Show us your numbers on how this would work.
We don't use oil in power plants, so how does making other power plants make us use less oil?
Goddamn your ignorant....
I know oil is a commodity. 'Fungibl'..you ing hillbilly, is just another way of saying 'commodity'. So ing what. Oil is a commodity. Surprise surprise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility
The issue isn't oil. The issue is paying for it. If we can make enough 'stuff' that people want to sell it to them, then spending money on oil or heroin or dolls...it doesn't matter what we spend it on, is moot.
We use natural gas in power plants. We have natural gas running out of our ears. And coal.
Ever read the interesting assessment that calculated, conservatively, that we would need to build 700+ reactors over the next 30 years to come close to getting the same % of our electricity from nukes as the French do?
Given that nukes always end up costing 200-400% more than originally estimated, that seems to be a bit... expensive. Given further than nukes ALWAYS have required government subsidies, and pretty substantial ones too, in the past, I can guess how that would go over.
Bit ironic that the same crowd that puts forth nukes as the one of the only viable solution to oil imports or future energy needs almost universally is against government subsidies, isn't it?
Both of which suffer the same depletion charactoristics as oil.
Both of which get lumped into pretty much every calculation concerning the coming "tough oil" period.
The easy stuff is gone, what is left is harder to get. That goes for oil, gas, or coal.
We are entering an era where our economy will stagnate unless we actively change it to be less dependent on these sources.
We use neither in cars.
So ? But here is the thing. We have more coal and natural gas and oil than France.
What is it exactly, that your types propose other than...stop using oil/gas ?
You have an answer ?
Like I say, I don't care what we do, we just gotta stop shipping our money overseas. India and China aren't going to fall for that 'carbon credit' scam.
What's left ? Besides you killing yourself, after you kill your family, to give the rest of us a little more.
dumbass
Your city busses run on natural gas. We could use natural gas for cars. We just need a safe way to refuel so dumbasses like you don't blow everyone up when they put $2.00 worth of gas in their car.
Wait...your answer is ...electric cars. Of course, you have to get that electricy from somewhere.
I have given no answer, dumbass.
I'm still waiting for you to give us the numbers for your plan, dumbass.
Run away.
Hey man, we could power cars on rainbows and incense. Maybe potpourri. You'd be happy then ? Just think of the wonderful smell. Houston would be a virtual paradise. People would go there to get aroma therapy.
You're right. All is lost. There is no answer.
Wait. We could build a giant dam in the grand canyon.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
