It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
How do you [Don] respond to those who would say that no government has a claim on what they earn? We do have a segment of the population here on ATS which argues that the Federal income tax is illegal. I'd be curious to know what your perspective is on that?
I am not saying that the US is helpless. What I am saying is that there is no instant fix to the problem [high oil prices]. Compromise somewhere along the line will be needed and that increasing the amount of tax [on] Oil company's wont help.
The situation will only become hopeless if nothing is done.
I'm struck by how much media coverage there has been this weekend of the floods . . I'm wondering about the losses to wheat and corn. Googling suggests to me that speculators are going to bid corn and wheat prices through the roof in very short order. All I can say is, "wow."
If laws are put in place to control or outlaw speculation look for the Federal Reserve to be the regulator. The problem is who profit the most from rising Oil or even Corn prices probably control the supply of those products. This could extend to increasing the amount of produce grown on current farms or adding new agricultural areas. Whether or not speculation is outlawed on food and oil my concern is that criminal elements and terrorist organizations are or will be involved speculation.
Okay, I'll bite. (1) WHAT inspires the bureaucracy to be more accountable when it is currently not so accountable for the laws it is supposed to be enforcing? (2) The situation we find ourselves in today might be different if many of the laws on the books were actually enforced. (3) Bear in mind that Democrats had Republicans have BOTH been a little too chummy with big business in recent years.
Originally posted by donwhite
OK you say, how do I in 2008 bring back this Earthly Paradise you are describing to me?
First, quit bad-mouthing the ONLY agency that can do that. The US Government.
Originally posted by donwhite
Second, stop shooting yourselves in the foot by genuflecting to the empty call for STATE’S RIGHTS. The primary tool of the backward looking agenda people. Is it not bad enough that 650,000 men died between 1861 and 1865 to establish the Federal government and disestablish the state governments? Talk about winning the war and losing the peace!
Originally posted by donwhite
Why do we insist on mocking both GOD and COUNTRY in one Pledge of Allegiance? You know what I’m referring to: I pledge allegiance to the FLAG of the UNITED STATES, one nation, UNDER GOD, indivisible and with liberty and justice for all. Q. How many LIES can you count in that one phrase?
Originally posted by donwhite
Yet we propagandize our children buy making them utter it every day. WOW! Then come our politicians and WRAP themselves in the flag! Out of which we get Guantanamo Bay and Rendition. And torture authored in the Oval Office - Scooter Liddy’s ticket out of jail.
Originally posted by donwhite
Third. You REVERSE this perverse PRIVATIZING of the US Government. I’ve already mentioned the Department of Energy website. At one place it says, we have 18,000 employees to sere you and at another it says we have 114,000 contract employees. So how many people does the US Treasury PAY? 18,000 or 132,000?
Originally posted by donwhite
3) every time capitalism is allowed to run amok or “regulate” itself as in the perverse teachings of Milton Friedman advocate. It never has, it is not now and it never will. Capitalism must be tempered with humaneness - some call it socialism - to be the servant of ALL the people rather than the strongest, smartest and best placed amongst us.
Originally posted by donwhite
Every one of those things and more can be done if the people are aware it can be. Ceaseless GOP anti-government propaganda encouraged by beneficial if not intentional incidents like Katrina and the gutted FEMA inept response only go to convince the people that indeed we are helpless. Which is where the NEO CONS want us and have so far, put us. Instead, the CEO ought to have been FIRED!
Originally posted by donwhite
Have I made myself “perfectly clear” to quote another famous figure from the past?
Taming of capitalism is also known as regulation. The Federal government is Constitutionally mandated to be a steward, or a guardian. The Founders never intended for it to be a social engineer.
I object to big government. For the moment, I can say why I object to big government without being "renditioned." My challenge, as a citizen, is to take the chance that I might one day be picked up by the kids from Department of Homeland Security. My risk is a stay at Club Gitmo, or some place like it. My reward could be the hearts and minds that I win over to my point of view.
I object to political dynasties. I have not approved of the Bush dynasty. I have, in fact, campaigned avidly against a Clinton dynasty. I have gone so far as to write books and bogs that back up my position as they relate to these matters.
I find myself being interested in the Founding Fathers because they did disagree on so much. Their personal papers and correspondence make for some very thoughtful reading. They couldn't have known what they were unleashing on the world. Some would say that they hadn't gone far enough. Others would no doubt argue that they really had gone too far.
What do we learn from this? Find the middle ground, and hold on to it. easier said than, done, to be sure. Even so, that's what I like to think.
How does this apply to the thread topic of speculation? today's trading environment has become too complicated for the best of speculator to understand. Too many things are tied to the pricing of volatile commodities. Some degree of reform is necessary.
I have a question. Don by a ban on trading food and Oil do you mean something along the lines of price controls?
Now that we face the twin hits of agro and oil, what's going to happen in the world of futures speculation? A lot of our oil problems can be solved with new refineries, which will take years to come on line. Do we need to bring new farm land in to production? This, and the other infrastructure needs that have to be addressed suggest to me that we're in for a decade of "reconstruction."
Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum production is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. If global consumption is not mitigated before the peak, a world energy crisis may develop because the availability of conventional oil will drop and prices will rise, perhaps dramatically. Geophysicist M. King Hubbert first tested the theory in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. It did.
His logistic model, now called the Hubbert peak theory, has since been used to predict the peak petroleum production of many other countries, and has also proved useful in other limited-resource production-domains. According to the Hubbert model, the production rate of a limited resource will follow a roughly symmetrical bell-shaped curve based on the limits of exploitability and market pressures. [The base line represents time and is logarithmic. That is, the time representing pre-peak increased production is arithmetical, whereas the time for depletion post-peak is as in Malthus, geometrical. Edited]
The world's oil supply is fixed because it is no longer being naturally produced. Several hundred million years ago, plankton and bacteria thrived in the oceans of the then carbon dioxide rich atmosphere. Those plankton and bacteria that settled in porous sandstone or limestone and those plankton and bacteria that were then capped by shale or salt were allowed to heat and become pressurized to form oil.
Some observers, such as petroleum industry experts Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Matthew Simmons, believe the high dependence of most modern industrial transport, agricultural and industrial systems on the relative low cost and high availability of oil will cause the post-peak production decline and possible severe increases in the price of oil to have negative implications for the global economy. Although predictions as to what exactly these negative effects will be vary greatly, a growing number of oil-industry chieftains are endorsing an idea long deemed fringe: The world is approaching a practical limit to the number of barrels of crude oil that can be pumped every day.
If political and economic change only occur in reaction to high prices and shortages rather than in reaction to the threat of a peak, then the degree of economic damage to importing countries will largely depend on how rapidly oil imports decline post-peak. The Export Land Model shows that the amount of oil available internationally drops much more quickly than production in exporting countries because the exporting countries maintain an internal growth in demand.
Shortfalls in production (and therefore supply) would cause extreme price inflation, unless demand is mitigated with planned conservation measures and use of alternatives, which would need to be implemented 20 years before the peak.
Optimistic estimations of peak production forecast a peak will happen in the 2020s or 2030s and assume major investments in alternatives will occur before a crisis, circumventing the need for major changes in the lifestyle of heavily oil-consuming nations. These models show the price of oil at first escalating and then retreating as other types of fuel and energy sources are used.
Pessimistic predictions of future oil production operate on the thesis that the peak has already occurred or will occur shortly and, as proactive mitigation may no longer be an option, predict a global depression, perhaps even initiating a chain reaction of the various feedback mechanisms in the global market which might stimulate a collapse of global industrial civilization. Throughout the first two quarters of 2008, there were signs that a possible recession was being made worse by a series of record oil prices. [Bold added by edit for emphasis.]
en.wikipedia.org...
Now that oil has hit $140 per barrel, I note that the 'argument' against off-shore drilling is that it's not enough. We have more untapped oil here in Alaska than we've pumped out of the ground so far. Opponents of new drilling (anywhere) tend to downgrade the estimates of what experts think they've already found. Oil, oil, everywhere, and nary a drop to pump.
The State of Alaska is currently in Federal court to ask that ALASKAN oil leases be "taken back" because none of the major petro corps are doing anything to develop those resources. I expect the State to lose their challenge because a contract is a contract. Future oil lease contacts WILL have development clauses in them, which will force the oil companies to dig or divest. We've been talking about this one for almost 20 years. It's just not something you hear about in the national news.