A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

festeringZit

EOG Enthusiast
#1
A Tale Of Two Recessions And Two Presidents

Growth: It's been nearly two full years since the recession officially ended, and the economy is still struggling to get off the ground. It didn't have to be this way.

When the Commerce Department released its estimate for first-quarter growth ? a meager 1.8% ? President Obama's chief economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, at least conceded that "faster growth is needed to replace the jobs lost in the downturn."

And granted, the economy needs to expand by at least 2.5% just to keep up with growth in the labor force. So at 1.8%, we're essentially losing ground, a fact that last week's 429,000 initial jobless claims underscores. But what Goolsbee didn't acknowledge is that the economy could be growing at a much faster rate, and would be if it weren't saddled with Obama's reckless policies.

How do we know this? Compare the two worst post-World War II recessions. Both the 1981-82 and the 2007-09 downturns were long (16 months and 18 months, respectively) and painful (unemployment peaked at 10.8% in 1981-82 and 10.1% in the last one).

What's dramatically different, however, is how each president responded.

Obama massively increased spending, vastly expanded the regulatory state, and pushed through a government takeover of health care. What's more, he constantly browbeats industry leaders, talks about the failings of the marketplace and endlessly advocates higher taxes on the most productive parts of the economy.

In contrast, Reagan pushed spending restraint, deregulated entire industries, massively cut taxes and waxed poetic about the wonders of a free economy.

The result? While the Reagan recovery saw turbocharged growth and a tumbling unemployment rate, Obama's has produced neither. Consider:

? GDP. In the seven quarters after the 1981-82 recession ended, the economy cranked out quarterly growth rates that averaged 7.1%. Under Obama, GDP growth has averaged a mere 2.8%. (See chart at right.)

? Unemployment. Under Reagan, the unemployment rate had fallen to 7.5% by this point in the recovery. Under Obama, it's still stuck at 8.8%.

? Long-term unemployment. There were far fewer long-term unemployed by this point in the Reagan recovery; just 18% of the unemployed had been without a job 27 weeks or more. Under Obama, that figure is an astonishing 45%.

? Consumer confidence. By this point in the Reagan recovery, the Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index had hit 100. Today, the index stands at just 65.4.

? Deficits. Under Reagan, the federal deficit was trimmed to 4.8% of GDP by 1984. Under Obama, the deficit is expected to climb to 10.9% of GDP this year.

Obama and his defenders like to say he inherited the worst downturn since the Great Depression and that things would have been worse still had he not acted. But the recession was almost over by the time he took office ? and officially over just six months after that.

So while Obama's policies had little to do with bringing an end to the Great Recession, they've had everything to do with producing what is by far the worst economic recovery in the past 70 years.



http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...-Recovery-.htm
 

tank

EOG Dedicated
#2
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

The sad part is that he still is clueless and it is going to get worse!!Why did we need that stimulus again??Oh yeah so we can be worse off and billions more in the hole!!
 
#7
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

Even as a Democrat, I am disgusted with that. The country is trillions in debt and all the government cares about is handing out these food stamps to people so they can sit at home and then go to the store with entitled attitudes. Let them get a job - I'm sure McDonald's will hire anyone.
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
#8
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

Even as a Democrat, I am disgusted with that. The country is trillions in debt and all the government cares about is handing out these food stamps to people so they can sit at home and then go to the store with entitled attitudes. Let them get a job - I'm sure McDonald's will hire anyone.
Not necessarily;even though McDonald's hired 62,000 new workers in the aftermath of "National Hiring Day" that was out of 1 million applicants,so over 938,000 hopefuls didn't make the cut[which itself reflects the dire job prospects for the unemployed].
As for the steady increase in food stamp participation,there's a growing block of citizens who are not needed,or unable to participate in an economy that's constrained by competition for resources and labor with other players in the world.
Throwing the idle masses a bone keeps them relatively docile and under some semblance of control instead of raising hell in the streets.


Job seekers reach for applications at a McDonald's Corp. restaurant in Chicago
on April 19, 2011. Photographer: Tim Boyle/Bloomberg

McDonald's Corp [MCD], the world’s biggest restaurant chain, said it hired 24 percent more people than planned during an employment event this month.
McDonald’s and its franchisees hired 62,000 people in the U.S. after receiving more than one million applications, the Oak Brook, Illinois-based company said today in an e-mailed statement. Previously, it said it planned to hire 50,000.

The April 19 national hiring day was the company’s first, said Danya Proud, a McDonald’s spokeswoman. She declined to disclose how many of the jobs were full- versus part-time. McDonald’s employed 400,000 workers worldwide at company-owned stores at the end of 2010, according to a company filing.

...The fast-food chain has about 14,000 stores in the U.S. and more than 18,000 abroad. About 80 percent of all McDonald’s stores are franchised.
From:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ring-national-event-24-more-than-planned.html
 
#9
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

Until the parasite/producer ratio is reversed, the United States is inevitably doomed.

Thanks to Obama, the slow socially-engineered inevitable decline has shifted into hyper speed.
 
#10
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

As for the steady increase in food stamp participation,there's a growing block of citizens who are not needed,or unable to participate in an economy that's constrained by competition for resources and labor with other players in the world.
Throwing the idle masses a bone keeps them relatively docile and under some semblance of control instead of raising hell in the streets.
I would have more sympathy if they were appreciative of what they get, but that never seems to be the case when I am behind someone with food stamps at the store. They always want more and try to beat the system - once you start giving handouts, there is no end to what they want to take.

I can always tell it's a food stamps person by their attitude. One older woman had no food stamps left on account and actually said "don't you know who I am," as if she was so important and should be allowed to leave with free food. Then there are others who always try to buy things that aren't approved for food stamps - then they are rude when they get caught. The cashiers tell me that the food stamps customers are the worst and I see it all the time.
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
#11
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

Until the parasite/producer ratio is reversed, the United States is inevitably doomed.

Thanks to Obama, the slow socially-engineered inevitable decline has shifted into hyper speed.
The current energy intensive typical U.S. lifestyle is structurally doomed,Obama or any other seat warmer can't change physics,and the decline began decades ago but beens papered over temporarily.


The election that mattered here wasn?t Reagan?s relatively narrow victory in 1980, but his landslide in 1984, when most of the nation registered its approval of a policy shift that spared them the costs of the transition to sustainability. It was after the latter election that the axe came down on funding for appropriate tech, and Woodsy Owl?s iconic "Give a hoot ? don?t pollute!" ads vanished from the airwaves.

Notice also what happened as the Eighties unfolded. It wasn?t just the American public that crumpled; the sustainability movement did, too. There were some who stayed the course, who saw that the plunge in energy prices bought by breakneck pumping of the North Slope and North Sea oil fields would turn out to be one of history?s classic short-term fixes, and kept the green flame lit. Still, by and large, most of the people who had been subscribers to Rain and Coevolution Quarterly, and had been nervously trying to work up the courage to accept the restricted lifestyles they knew would be required , talked themselves into believing that the time for that was over. Several commenters on last week?s post have recalled the guilty relief with which they, and so many other people, welcomed the end of gas lines and the return of cheap gasoline; it was a common sentiment at the time.

The price for that failure, though, was not limited to the collapse of a movement that might just have gotten us through the end of the petroleum age without a long and bitter age of contraction. The payoff the Reagan administration offered the American people was the same unearned prosperity that wrecks most democracies in the end. That payoff was cashed in, in turn, by cultivating a degree of fiscal irresponsibility no previous American administration had ever considered: cutting taxes, increasing government payouts, and simply borrowing the difference.

From:
The Archdruid Report: Alternatives to Nihilism, Part Two: Lead Us Away From Here

 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
#12
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

I would have more sympathy if they were appreciative of what they get, but that never seems to be the case when I am behind someone with food stamps at the store. They always want more and try to beat the system - once you start giving handouts, there is no end to what they want to take.

I can always tell it's a food stamps person by their attitude. One older woman had no food stamps left on account and actually said "don't you know who I am," as if she was so important and should be allowed to leave with free food. Then there are others who always try to buy things that aren't approved for food stamps - then they are rude when they get caught. The cashiers tell me that the food stamps customers are the worst and I see it all the time.
Yes we don't need to be sympathetic to the attitude encountered,
and yet realize the individuals involved may have psychological issues[like defensivsness,or insecurity]because of their dependence on handouts.Other messages from marketeers,government,and the education system get internalized,and resurface in behaviors.Try and figure out what makes these people tick,and don't take it personally.
In an imploding economy due to resource decline and competition how do we maximize everybody's potential contribution to society,while maintaining individual freedoms.Business as usual [BAU] will soon be a thing of the past,can the future be shaped,or will it just overwhelm us?
 
#13
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

Yes we don't need to be sympathetic to the attitude encountered,
and yet realize the individuals involved may have psychological issues[like defensivsness,or insecurity]because of their dependence on handouts.Other messages from marketeers,government,and the education system get internalized,and resurface in behaviors.Try and figure out what makes these people tick,and don't take it personally.
Minding our own business and allowing charities and churches to do what they do best would be more effective and efficient strategy -- as opposed to the current dysfunctional system which relies on pseudo-intellectual elites who's livelihood depends on "trying to figure out what makes these people tick", then uses their politically-motivated "theories" to implement bogus, bankrupting policies completely divorced from reality.

In an imploding economy due to resource decline and competition how do we maximize everybody's potential contribution to society,while maintaining individual freedoms.Business as usual [BAU] will soon be a thing of the past,can the future be shaped,or will it just overwhelm us?
The economy is imploding because it was socially-engineered into the ditch. You reap what you sow.

Resource decline? Are you still harping about "peak oil"? Oil is not "fossil fuel" in limited supply but rather an abiotic substance that is naturally replenished on a constant basis. "Peak oil", much like the "population bomb" and Gorebull Warming, are nothing but poll-tested political terms crafted by devious power-hungry Marxists hell-bent on brainwashing and controlling the people.
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
#14
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents


Au Pairs - America
(TV appearance ''Casablanca'' 1982)
<IFRAME height=510 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pgWv2CQIWag" frameBorder=0 width=640 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>
Get into the mood for worldwide confrontation
Wise up to the words of Haig delivered through Reagan
Exposing a commie campaign for world domination
Let's have some more mass extermination
Genocide down at the Sumpul river
Children of eight can go and get raped
Why don't you get a bayonet -
mince up a peasant or two?

At all costs we've got to stop the Reds
Who wants to hear about 1000 peasants lying dead
Remember remember America's right behind you!
Remember the 50s and Mr. MacCarthy
Let's have a witch hunt and nuclear party
Reagan on TV - what a nice kind of guy
He appears on the news without collar and tie
He could press the button and he would survive
He could rule the world cause he's got God on his side

Paranoia in America

 

tank

EOG Dedicated
#15
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

I would have more sympathy if they were appreciative of what they get, but that never seems to be the case when I am behind someone with food stamps at the store. They always want more and try to beat the system - once you start giving handouts, there is no end to what they want to take.

I can always tell it's a food stamps person by their attitude. One older woman had no food stamps left on account and actually said "don't you know who I am," as if she was so important and should be allowed to leave with free food. Then there are others who always try to buy things that aren't approved for food stamps - then they are rude when they get caught. The cashiers tell me that the food stamps customers are the worst and I see it all the time.
This really bugs me too.You buy stuff on sale and try to stretch a buck and these people are always buying name brand stuff and do not care since it is not their money.If they had to spend their hard earned cash I bet they would spend it a little more wisely.
 
#16
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

This really bugs me too.You buy stuff on sale and try to stretch a buck and these people are always buying name brand stuff and do not care since it is not their money.If they had to spend their hard earned cash I bet they would spend it a little more wisely.
In the old days, people hid the fact that they needed government assistance, and they worked to get off the system. So, in an effort to remove the stigma of being a freeloader (more freeloaders = more Democrat votes) progressive "thinkers" (the ones scrimmage believe understand the poor and should run society) introduced welfare cards. Problem solved: no more intimidation and shame for the victims of evil dog-eat-dog capitalism.

 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
#17
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

The economy is imploding because it was socially-engineered into the ditch. You reap what you sow.

Resource decline? Are you still harping about "peak oil"? Oil is not "fossil fuel" in limited supply but rather an abiotic substance that is naturally replenished on a constant basis. "Peak oil", much like the "population bomb" and Gorebull Warming, are nothing but poll-tested political terms crafted by devious power-hungry Marxists hell-bent on brainwashing and controlling the people.

Ender on November 4, 2005 - 8:52pm

For some basement oil this abiotic explanation is one of the possible explanations. However it is only one of them and not the best.

Even if it was true do the proponents imagine that oil bubbles out of the mantle at 83 million barrels per day to satisfy our present consumption? If abiotic oil was correct then it would still be a very slow process over billions of years not a panacea for our addiction. They still have to explain biomarkers and the very simple fact that most current oil is found where the current theory predicts it to be. We could not be that wrong for so long and found as much oil as we have.

<!-- close comment div -->
CmdrPhil on November 4, 2005 - 9:44pm
It's nearly impossible to disprove the possibility of abiotic origin of oil. The pertinent question, as you suggest, is whether the generation rate of oil, whatever the source, is close to what we need to sustain our current rate of use.
If you assume the generation rate is 83e6 barrels/day, 7 barrels of oil weighs 1 metric ton, then in 1.4 billion years 0.1% of the Earth's mass has been converted to oil, and it only took 300 yrs or so to create all of the oil-like hydrocarbons we have thus far observed on the planet. So if one would want to argue that abiotic oil can replenish our current rate of consumption, you would have to also explain either what happened to those vast oceans of oil generated over the history of the planet or why the process has suddenly speeded up now that humans have decided to burn it for fuel. I don't have to know much about geology to know that the argument is improbable at best.

<!-- close comment div -->
nate hagens on November 5, 2005 - 12:42am

I wonder what the correlation is between people believing in creationism and believing in abiotic oil? and betting on favorites in sports, liking Sean Hannity, etc. People like to see things in positive light, and ones past few days experience are the best expectation for tomorrow. Peak oil is a 5 standard deviation event that no matter how close and real it is, most will ignore. Its in their brain chemicals...

From and more at:
The Oil Drum | Abiotic Snake Oil

 
#18
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

Scrimmage, the Chinese and Saudis don't believe in this "peak oil" nonsense and are laughing all the way to the bank utilizing their own natural resources. Their oil industries don't have to contend with completely unhinged "social planners" determined to control everyone and everything like Americans and Europeans (two progressive societies headed for complete cultural and economic ruin).

Between the Bakken Fields in North and South Dakota, the Outer Continental Shelf, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, tar sands, oil shale... United States untapped oil reserves easily exceed 180 trillion dollars. And with new technologies and ingenuity that number could easily multiply.

There are real tangible, logical solutions to all of these problems, but not with the current radical, corrupt unhinged political structure in place.



Americans are getting exactly what they deserve.
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
#19
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

This really bugs me too.You buy stuff on sale and try to stretch a buck and these people are always buying name brand stuff and do not care since it is not their money.If they had to spend their hard earned cash I bet they would spend it a little more wisely.
What accounts for their behavior,being glued to the television,and other media which bombard them with marketing messages all day long,coupled with a lack of critical reasoning skills and introspection that the public education system many attend doesn't instill,and a lack of self discipline as basic survival needs are readily available without much effort.
What cause or purpose can/will energize and inspire those who aren't the best capable of participating fully in todays structured society to do something different as the future evolves,or are most going to be marginalized even further as the U.S. adjusts to lower energy inputs?

DISPOSABLE HEROES OF HIPHOPRISY
Television 1991
<IFRAME height=510 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ebWk9pBXSso" frameBorder=0 width=640 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
#22
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

Scrimmage, the Chinese and Saudis don't believe in this "peak oil" nonsense and are laughing all the way to the bank utilizing their own natural resources. Their oil industries don't have to contend with completely unhinged "social planners" determined to control everyone and everything like Americans and Europeans (two progressive societies headed for complete cultural and economic ruin).

Between the Bakken Fields in North and South Dakota, the Outer Continental Shelf, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, tar sands, oil shale... United States untapped oil reserves easily exceed 180 trillion dollars. And with new technologies and ingenuity that number could easily multiply.

There are real tangible, logical solutions to all of these problems, but not with the current radical, corrupt unhinged political structure in place.

Americans are getting exactly what they deserve.
Saudi Arabia's biggest field Ghawar is depleting rapidly,China has reduced oil exports,but as U.S, consumption's declined for various reasons China's used their some of their 3 trillion dollar reserve to increase their oil [mainly priced in $'s]consumption 10% through imports.China has also expanded its prescence in many resource rich areas[particularly Africa],and has been accumulating rare earth,and other minerals to stockpile.
Saudi Arabia's net exports are destined to drop as 40 years ago in the 70's their 5 million people were using 500,000 barrels a day where today its 25 million people are using almost 6x as much [3mbpd] allowing for less exports.
How many recoverable barrels does "180 trillion dollars" represent,and what's the EROEI for extracting energy from the sources you mention.
As BP's Deepwater Horizon "accident" showed offshore drilling is very risky,expensive,and energy intensive,it wouldn't need to be done if there were more easily exploitable fields elsewhere.

American's will be getting a reality check when we no longer can use 20% of the worlds resources for our 5% of the worlds population as the competition has wised up,and new rivals have emerged.



The chart above illustrates average daily oil consumption in 2009. Note that the United States uses more than twice as much oil each day as its nearest competitor, China (Sources: BP Statistical Review of World Energy; The Guardian)
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
#23
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

Who pays for these TVs inflicting all this damage on the "poor", scrimmage?

Progressivism is self-defeating.
If the TV viewers didn't buy them then the advertisers would have to give them away,ala the classic Gillettte razor marketing model[distribute free razors so users need to buy replacement blades].
You've got the wrong guy if you're applying a "Progressivism" label to me,every issue or arguement is considered on merit,not ideology,bring facts and citations from credible sources for your position,and disagreements are OK.
BTW,why's "poor" in quotes,who said it?
 
#24
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

Consumption charts are meaningless, given the fact the United States is sitting on the world's largest untapped oil reserves -- well over 2 trillion barrels of oil.

The problem isn't consumption, the problem is the corrupt, entrenched progressive power structure. (surprise!) 2938u4ji23

One of the two political party believes US energy policy should be geared toward "climate change." :doh1


The U.S.' Untapped Oil Bounty


There's enough oil to power the nation for three centuries without OPEC's help -- IF we're willing to go after it.


By Jim Ostroff

June 30, 2008

<noscript>
</noscript> <noscript>
</noscript> Think the U.S. is running out of oil? Think again. What is running low, given soaring demand for energy worldwide, is oil in fields that have already been tapped and are in production -- in other words, the relatively easy-to-get stuff, which oil companies have proven exists and can get at with current technology. Those reserves are clearly being drained. The U.S. has around 20 billion barrels now, down from nearly 29 billion barrels a decade ago and about half the 1970 peak of 39 billion barrels. But...

The U.S. is sitting on the world's largest, untapped oil reserves -- reservoirs which energy experts know exist, but which have not yet been tapped and may not be attainable with current technology. In fact, such untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand -- at today's levels -- for auto, truck, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.

What's the problem then? Why aren't oil companies jumping to pump the black gold? Contrary to what some conspiracy theorists would have you believe, there is no cabal of oil companies and foreign governments blocking the way, bottling up U.S. oil production. The reality is much more mundane. Those untapped reserves are located in places that either Uncle Sam has put off-limits for environmental reasons or are too costly to get -- or a combination of both.

Given current sky-high prices for crude oil and the likelihood that oil prices will remain high -- at or above $100 a barrel -- for the foreseeable future, it is now economically viable to tap some of those reserves. But environmental concerns -- ranging from preservation of pristine lands to worries about increasing the use of fossil fuels and accelerating global climate change -- remain a hurdle.

Here's a look at some of the largest untapped reserves.

  • Oil shales: Oil extracted from shale fields represents the mother lode of untapped reserves, at about 1.5 trillion barrels -- or 200 years worth of supply at current usage levels. Roughly two-thirds of the U.S.'s oil shale fields in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah are in federally-protected areas and closed to development. In addition, getting the oil out of the rock is a challenge, requiring cooking or chemical treatment of rock located as much as half a mile under the earth's surface.

  • To make oil shale production economically worthwhile, crude oil prices must remain above $50 a barrel for a protracted period. Given the outlook for continued high prices, oil companies such as ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell Inc., EGL Resources, Brazil's Petrobras and others are gearing up pilot projects on nonfederal lands. The potential is to produce 1 million barrels of oil a day within a decade from lands currently open -- and several times that amount if the lawmakers give the green light to development of lands now off-limits.

  • Tar sands: Around 75 billion barrels of oil could come from tar sands, similar to Canadian fields, which now churn out a million barrels a day. The sands are located predominantly in Utah, Alaska, Texas and California, as well as in Alabama and Kentucky on federal and state lands that, by laws and administrative orders, are closed to mineral and petroleum development.

  • The outer continental shelf (OCS): Something in the neighborhood of 90 billion barrels of oil sit beneath the ocean bed 50 to 100 miles off the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts. Presidential bans and congressional prohibitions have put the tracts off-limits to oil company exploration at least until 2012, although there's a chance that Congress may lift the moratorium before then. In recent months, several key policymakers, including GOP presidential candidate John McCain and Florida Governor Charles Crist Jr. (R), have reversed their positions on drilling in the OCS. Crist's change of mind may signal a new trend. Concern about potential damage to his state's beaches and Florida's critical tourism industry had dictated his opposition to drilling off the state's coasts. But the state's growing budget woes -- and the prospect of capturing some cash from off-shore leasing -- is proving alluring.

  • The Bakken Play: With up to 100 billion barrels of oil, the reserves locked under rocks buried a mile or more beneath Montana and Saskatchewan, Canada, are more than twice the size of Alaskan's entire oil cache. New drilling and oil recovery technologies are overcoming production obstacles and petroleum companies are rushing to stake their claims. Marathon Oil recently acquired about 200,000 acres in the area and will drill about 300 oil wells within five years. Brigham Exploration and Crescent Point Energy Trust also want a piece of the action. EOG Resources alone figures it can produce 80 million barrels of oil from its Bakken field. But It will take at least five years before the oil starts flowing in large volumes.

  • The Alaska National Wildlife Refuge: About 10 billion barrels of oil are locked away here, with little possibility that federal lawmakers will open the door.
Of course, it isn't enough to simply get at the oil in these and other U.S. reserves. Providing major new supplies to U.S. consumers also requires a significant jump in refining capacity. But existing environmental regulations and community opposition make it tough to build new refineries. The last new domestic refinery was started up in 1976. And even if the technology and political will came together to allow oil companies access to the untapped reserves, they'll be reluctant to do so if the U.S. doesn't also have the capacity to refine the petroleum produced.

For weekly updates on topics to improve your business decisionmaking, click here.
 
#25
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

If the TV viewers didn't buy them then the advertisers would have to give them away,ala the classic Gillettte razor marketing model[distribute free razors so users need to buy replacement blades].
You missed my point. Who's paying for these televisions and cable services which allow your "victims of society" to be brainwashed by all the evil corporate brands? Answer: your tax dollars! (Well, technically, future generations' tax dollars because we've already pissed all of our current wealth away!)

To your your larger point: Gillette isn't putting a gun to anyone's head forcing them to buy razors, only the government can do that, i.e., Obamacare. If the government (someone else) pays my room and board, food, health care, abortion or child care...and pretty much all my needs are covered, of course I would be more susceptible to stupid decisions. Have you ever heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? You want to point the finger at evil corporations exploiting a market (made up of vulnerable stupid 'victims' of society) the government helped create. Ditch every socialist program tomorrow and you'd be surprised how fast consumer habits would change in this country. Government programs aren't a panacea for a lack of self-esteem or self-control, quite the opposite: they weaken the freely formed individual by subsidizing bad behavior and poor decision making. If you don't want poor people eating unhealthy fast foods, stop paying for their health care and many will begin eating apples instead of McDonalds and Pizza Hut. The fact is, no matter how sweet sounding a government program, people aren't going to give up their vices and poor lifestyle choices unless they have "skin in the game".

Once you accept economics as the master science, it's a lot easier to "solve problems."
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
#26
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

Joe;
Let's parse your article[from where did you get it?]:

Those reserves are clearly being drained. The U.S. has around 20 billion barrels now, down from nearly 29 billion barrels a decade ago and about half the 1970 peak of 39 billion barrels. But...
Sounds like a steady drop.

The U.S. is sitting on the world's largest, untapped oil reserves -- reservoirs which energy experts know exist, but which have not yet been tapped and may not be attainable with current technology.
"may not be attainable" well a lot of good that does us.

Those untapped reserves are located in places that either Uncle Sam has put off-limits for environmental reasons or are too costly to get -- or a combination of both.
Your power line confuses the issue by dropping the inconvenient "or are too costly to get at" into a larger context.

the likelihood that oil prices will remain high -- at or above $100 a barrel -- for the foreseeable future,
How long's the "foreseeable future"if there's so much untapped potential out there?

In addition, getting the oil out of the rock is a challenge, requiring cooking or chemical treatment of rock located as much as half a mile under the earth's surface.
This won't be easy oil,What's the EROEI [energy return on energy invested]?

The potential is to produce 1 million barrels of oil a day within a decade from lands currently open --
5% of U.S. consumption within a decade of when?

Tar sands: Around 75 billion barrels of oil could come from tar sands, similar to Canadian fields, which now churn out a million barrels a day.]
Yes they could or might not,what's a realistic amount of recoverable oil that could be extracted from here,and is it worth it?A lot of gas and water's required to heat and liquify tar sands to produce readily useable crude oil products.

The outer continental shelf (OCS): Something in the neighborhood of 90 billion barrels of oil sit beneath the ocean bed 50 to 100 miles off the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts.
Drilling 50-100 miles offshore is expensive and dangerous,how much of the 90 billion will be extracted in a cost efficient manner?

The Bakken Play: With up to 100 billion barrels of oil, the reserves locked under rocks buried a mile or more beneath Montana and Saskatchewan, Canada, are more than twice the size of Alaskan's entire oil cache.
"Up to"and "buried a mile or more",this stuff is not oil in the conventional "light sweet crude" sense,but literally locked up in rock which needs to be
extracted to be useful.Looks like this:

Providing major new supplies to U.S. consumers also requires a significant jump in refining capacity. But existing environmental regulations and community opposition make it tough to build new refineries.
In a slack econonmy where communities are looking for tax generators this doesn't wash,actuallly it doesn't make sense to add refining capacity in the U.S. if there'smajor no additional raw inputs that need refining.
 

scrimmage

What you contemplate you imitate
#27
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

You missed my point. Who's paying for these televisions and cable services which allow your "victims of society" to be brainwashed by all the evil corporate brands? Answer: your tax dollars! (Well, technically, future generations' tax dollars because we've already pissed all of our current wealth away!)

To your your larger point: Gillette isn't putting a gun to anyone's head forcing them to buy razors, only the government can do that, i.e., Obamacare. If the government (someone else) pays my room and board, food, health care, abortion or child care...and pretty much all my needs are covered, of course I would be more susceptible to stupid decisions. Have you ever heard of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? You want to point the finger at evil corporations exploiting a market (made up of vulnerable stupid 'victims' of society) the government helped create. Ditch every socialist program tomorrow and you'd be surprised how fast consumer habits would change in this country. Government programs aren't a panacea for a lack of self-esteem or self-control, quite the opposite: they weaken the freely formed individual by subsidizing bad behavior and poor decision making. If you don't want poor people eating unhealthy fast foods, stop paying for their health care and many will begin eating apples instead of McDonalds and Pizza Hut. The fact is, no matter how sweet sounding a government program, people aren't going to give up their vices and poor lifestyle choices unless they have "skin in the game".

Once you accept economics as the master science, it's a lot easier to "solve problems."
My "victims of society"?Talk about missing the point!
The advertisers need viewers to promote their product,they would give TV's,or other media away free to influence buying decisions
Gillette is a classic case study in marketing,distribute the razor widely at low,or no cost,and then make money/profits selling blades,they never forced anyone to use their product,but once they garnered most of the market the cost of their blades went way beyond fair value.
In a complex economy some people can't handle the ruthless competiton and go off track,instead of straightening out the domestic labor force,it's more profitable to exploit the comparative advantage of other markets,so what else can those who get lost in the shuffle be expected to do other than take what's offered?
 
#28
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

My "victims of society"?Talk about missing the point!
The advertisers need viewers to promote their product,they would give TV's,or other media away free to influence buying decisions
Gillette is a classic case study in marketing,distribute the razor widely at low,or no cost,and then make money/profits selling blades,they never forced anyone to use their product,but once they garnered most of the market the cost of their blades went way beyond fair value.
In a complex economy some people can't handle the ruthless competiton and go off track,instead of straightening out the domestic labor force,it's more profitable to exploit the comparative advantage of other markets,so what else can those who get lost in the shuffle be expected to do other than take what's offered?
What's your point? Are you saying Gillette is the only company selling razors? I personally agree with you and think their disposable blades are a rip-off, SO I DON'T BUY THEM. (I use a Braun and their disposable cleaning cartridges instead. lol) I don't see any issue here. But to the larger point...

If your neighbor is subsidizing your physical, social and psychological needs, you WILL stray off the path and make decisions out of pure boredom and stupidity, whether its drug or alcohol abuse, gambling...or wasting money on gimmicky corporate branding. No matter where you look in society, there are always abuses, and you can't regulate and legislate your way to Utopia.

If you take the position that grown adults in society need the government to protect them, I can promise you, moral monsters like Cass Sunstein think the same thing of you.

Since I don't want to controlled, I must resist the temptation of controlling others. It's not 'heartless' or 'mean', its common sense and being aware of human history and where the dark side of human nature can lead a civilized society.
 
#29
Re: A Tale of 2 Recessions and 2 Presidents

As for our current backward energy policies, look..the government should not be subsidizing, NOR punishing, NOR restricting energy companies. The market should decide. By 'market', I mean individual consumers voting with their pocket books. The market should decide how many barrels of oil, natural gas pipelines, coal plants, and nuclear power reactors are necessary to power America's energy needs. No central planning necessary. Necessity being the mother of invention, the market (the people) will always find a way safely, effectively and efficiently.

Once the government gets involved beyond the necessity of public safety and security and starts restricting industries because of junk sciences like "global warming", saving a certain species, or some other irrational left wing 'cause', the country is well on its way to economic ruin. We don't stop flying whenever an airliner goes down, and we shouldn't stop drilling because it's too 'risky' or 'dangerous'. Right now, our government subsidizes domestic and foreign oil companies to drill in countries hostile to American values because they are forbidden from doing so back home! Most US oil reservoirs are either off-limits or too expensive to tap because of the massive red tape. Meanwhile, the Saudis, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Brazil, are all raping the American consumer. And for what? So limousine liberals can feel good about themselves?

Obama in his self-righteous, ignorant tone says coal is cheap but too dirty. Well, what of the Chinese who exploit this type of amateurish demagoguery and Ivy League stupidity by building dozens of coal plants which will only further rape our manufacturing base?

When the government makes the cost of doing business too expensive (the cumulative effect of draconian taxes, unions, regulations etc. -- basically, any and all things political) entire industries pack up and leave to countries with less restrictions because AMERICAN CONSUMERS STILL WANT THESE PRODUCTS.

Once the government starts micro-managing an industry, it disappears. We saw this in the oil industry, the textile industry, the steal industry...coal, auto, most manufacturing industries, more or less.

These political policies -- and they are political -- bankrupting America are decades in the making.

Right now, Americans are being raped by "skyrocketing gas prices and electricity prices", but we are told that drilling in areas populated by nothing but caribou won't impact the oil market for at least 10 years. Ignoring the economic ignorance of such an argument, was the left using this talking point 10 years ago? :doh1

Now with everything going to crap, these same know-nothing clusterfuck central planners have the audacity to lecture Americans that we must lower our standard of living and learn to live with less?

I don't think so. :finger004
 
Top