According to Gold, Gas Prices Aren't Rising; Dollar is Falling

canndo said:

Now why the hell would I want larger government for it's own sake. What it it about the right that sees a straw man army behind every statment a leftie makes? You think there is no global warming because if there were government would get bigger? really? is that the convoluted logic you employ in this thread?

I want government that is not one iota more powerful than big business - I want an exact balance where government can protect me from business abuse because contrary to you, I know there is more than one source of tyranny and I believe in checks and balances.

I said that the poster didn't know the mechanics of global warming - and he doesn't seem to if he claims that burning wood contributes to it. What are you to do with China? how about innovate ways to reduce pollution and carbon so that when China finally discovers it has a problem they will come to us for answers and they will pay us for those answers.

Click to expand...

You see government as some sort of god, like they don't make mistakes, or like they always have your best interest at heart, or like they aren't just as corrupt, if not more so than evil "big business". I'd rather have control over my own destiny, not rely on temporary politicians. You have way to much trust. Unless you are a government worker, then I can see why you think government take over of the private sector is a good idea. You say its not what you want, but then you vote for it.

Grandpapy said:

Well if you don't want to think in terms of warming how about waste? http://www.shaleoilresource.com/2011/11/15/bakken-from-space-443

Click to expand...

That is a separate issue, and I agree that waste is bad.

The thought that we will continue to find oil and continue to drill and recover it is silly. Didn't we all learn in- 5th grade I believe- that oil is a NON RENEWABLE RESOURCE? Not only that, it also doesn't address climate change. Canndo nailed it throughout this thread- Very well thought out and explained. I was impressed!

FreedomWorks said:

You see government as some sort of god, like they don't make mistakes, or like they always have your best interest at heart, or like they aren't just as corrupt, if not more so than evil "big business". I'd rather have control over my own destiny, not rely on temporary politicians. You have way to much trust. Unless you are a government worker, then I can see why you think government take over of the private sector is a good idea. You say its not what you want, but then you vote for it.

Click to expand...

Why is it that when I talk to someone on the right, and acknowlege that government has a role to play in society and history and that this government of the United States happens to be one of the better ones, I get "you think government is some sort of God". Government is not a monolithic malevolent entity, much as you like to paint it that way. We have chance after chance to alter it at every level (although most on the right seem to believe that only the Federal government is evil, except when a local government, not their own, does something they don't like)

We have no such power over big business, except as I said, with government. You have the mistaken belief that you can "control your own destiny" when it comes to the powers of big business. It is you, sir, who have the abundance of trust in the titanic forces that shape your life, most of those you are not even aware exist - and most of the time it is not government but big business that enlists you, unknowingly, to their causes.


As we can see here as a matter of fact.

Freedomworks was up against the ropes getting pound throughout the thread- He has an open head wound- And then:

canndo said:

Why is it that when I talk to someone on the right, and acknowlege that government has a role to play in society and history and that this government of the United States happens to be one of the better ones, I get "you think government is some sort of God". Government is not a monolithic malevolent entity, much as you like to paint it that way. We have chance after chance to alter it at every level (although most on the right seem to believe that only the Federal government is evil, except when a local government, not their own, does something they don't like)

Click to expand...

Ouch!
And then he so eloquently composed these words:

canndo said:

We have no such power over big business, except as I said, with government. You have the mistaken belief that you can "control your own destiny" when it comes to the powers of big business. It is you, sir, who have the abundance of trust in the titanic forces that shape your life, most of those you are not even aware exist - and most of the time it is not government but big business that enlists you, unknowingly, to their causes.


As we can see here as a matter of fact.

Click to expand...

And it was like pouring salt in the open, bleeding gash!

LOL- Seriously though- No truer words have been spoke when canndo said: " It is you, sir, who have the abundance of trust in the titanic forces that shape your life, most of those you are not even aware exist - and most of the time it is not government but big business that enlists you, unknowingly, to their causes."

And well articulated might I add.

canndo said:

I take issue with your chart for several reasons, I especially take issue with bio returns and would like to see how they arrived at such numbers.

You seem to believe that if we can't have our fossil fuels we have but one choice - to lay there and die.

Click to expand...

It isn't my chart. Just a random one I grabbed. How about this one?




Currently, fossil fuels are a MUST. We have to ween off, I agree, but we know that isn't going to happen this century. We must continue to increase our available fuel supplies until such time as we figure out how to go without fossil fuel as must happen eventually.

Today, as it stands, to go without fossil fuel is to lay down and die. The world we know would quite simply cease to exist and there would be mass starvation and the world would erupt into war. Not acknowledging this is pretty futile.

In 50, 75, or 100 years we may not be so dependent, but right now we are.

canndo said:

No, there is no "deeper" below a certain level there is no oil at all. There is no unlimited supply, Hubbert's projections have been quite accurate actually. the answer is not in fossil fuels. Yes, more can be recovered through various means but each of those means is expensive and the price is unlikely to be reduced no matter what the technology. We cannot look to the past and presume that path is a linear one, it is not.

Click to expand...

That isn't a reply to my comment. My comment was on the replenishing oil theory only. I do not believe the theory myself, I was merely pointing out information on the theory that was not brought up.

Currently, the answer IS fossil fuels since without them the world grinds to a stop. There is no other answer at this time or in the near future. Whether it is coal, natural gas, or oil, the world runs on fossil fuels and it will not be in this century that we kick the habit without some huge game changer. To refuse the urgent need to continue to use fossil fuels of different types is silly at best.

canndo said:

First of all, if you believe me to be retarded then I have no use for our discussion. A Libtard, to me, is a personal insult and I will thank you to refrain from such insults. I have not insulted you nor will I as many rightist here will agree.

We do not support drilling because drilling is not an answer - it is not a long term solution, it is non-renewable even by your standards of drilling more, deeper, further out in the ocean, on the poles, whereever, oil is a bad idea and we will have to get off the stuff either now, at some cost, or later at great cost. Foresight seems forever to escape rightist "planners". We are producing more oil in this country than we have in a decade and the prices have not fallen, in fact we are exporting more gas than we have in a very long time, and still the prices remain high.

I have not said anything against natgas nor will I, there are some dangers but we are at the point where we will have to cope with some of them.

You are presuming, still, an abundance of easily recoverable crude - and you presume wrong, as things progress you will see what we are beginning to see now, wilder and wilder fluctuations. As I said that no one refutes - saudi wells are yielding more and more salt water and less and less crude - they are pumping from the all time largest field on earth, it is hundreds of miles long and half a hundred miles wide - do you really think that we have not, with 100 years of exploration, satelites and high tech, seached most of the planet for a deposit that large? barring deep sea and polar areas - there aren't any more of those in the world. Keep track of large finds for a while and see what comes of it.

The price of fuel will not gradualy increase because the saudi wells take up the slack, at the point where they refuse to do so you will see huge spikes and shortfalls.

Play with that. consider a true half a million grl a day shortfall for 6 months, now consider a million brl shortfall for a year and tell me that your prices will be gradual and people will just "use less".

Click to expand...

Your right, you have not personally insulted me and I was wrong in that. I am not a 'rightist', as you put it. I will not be voting for Romney in the election. I don't think you are retarded, but I do think your positions are liberal positions instead of positions of actual belief. Conservatives and Liberals are both wrong.

If you mean a solution for 500 years from now, then no, drilling isn't a long term solution. If you mean it isn't a solution to get us through the next 100 years, then you are wrong. There is quite simply no way to get off of oil in this century. Ignoring that certainty is pretty asinine. We have to move ahead with fossil fuels and alternative energies. Doing one or the other isn't going to work because the world will collapse. If we run out of oil before the alternatives are in place then it will be like when Rome fell. The world will go into a dark ages and we won't have the world wide resources to rely on like we have oil for the last hundred years. Oil is the milk that nurtured the quick rise of society as we know it.

We will see a huge spike, but that huge spike will bring with it the push into other fuels. The spike will alarm us all for a year or so, but the reality of the situation will come. Oil won't drop way down in price ever again, but it will drop from the spike as people realize there are other ways and move towards them. The world might not be a great place to live in, but it will still be livable. If not, well, I am prepared for it, so I will be ok, by the time my supplies run out the world will have stabilized.

Natural gas prices are at historic lows... I am not sure what you mean by that.

Please, do point where I said there is easily recoverable crude in abundance. Please stop making straw men to beat up on. Natural gas is a fossil fuel too. The short and long of it is this century needs to have enough fossil fuels to continue on. I don't think I ever said alternative energies are stupid and we shouldn't bother. It isn't realistic to say we can make it through the next 100 years without drilling in all the places we can and using all the resources we have.

Prices will shoot way up, I believe in peak oil. I understand how it will go. Prices will stabilize again after since the high prices will stall economies. We will have a prolonged depression until we have another energy source to rely on. The world won't just collapse though. The governments of the world will throw regulations in the garbage and start doing whatever is necessary at that point to continue the existence of the world as it is even if it means clubbing baby seals and using them to make oil.

canndo said:

No comparison. In short there is no, easily recoverable, cheaply transported high energy material in the world and short of those dilithium crystals, there won't be. We operate on that fuel almost exclusively and we have little alternative. There is no similarity between what you say and our situation. I have been in the middle of the alternative fuel industry for years now - we have been working on it since the first gas shortage and in earnest for the last 20 years - there is nothing close to what you are expecting and no amount of someday, but just in time magic is going tochange that.

Click to expand...

You make it sound as if there is no option but losing. We have to go both ways, we can't wean off of fossil fuels until one of the alternatives actually works. This means we have to drill as much as possible and work towards solutions to the problem. Fossil fuels are our only option right now, you can't get rid of them until we have something else in place. We have enough usable fossil fuels to make it through this century.

cannabineer said:

Until we can efficiently burn deuterium ...
...the only practically (dunno about "cheaply") recoverable energy sources are coal and fissionables. (U-238 and Th-232, each of which requires neutron activation to yield a fissile fuel)
Sadly, burning deuterium for sustained power is not a simple or accessible technology at present.
And in a way, it is a blasphemous thing to the rugged individualists among us ... onlwy worldwide organizations can contemplate developing, building and operating a fusion power plant. They may become the Gothic cathedrals of this early millennium as the eponymous structures symbolized the previous. cn

Click to expand...

I understand necessity from the government. If something must happen, then it must. I don't want to live in a world that resembled Resident Evil and a government that is basically the umbrella corp. (Well.. maybe if I get to bang Milla Jovovich...) Neither side is actually addressing the energy issues, they are just shuffling and spouting rhetoric. We should be building nuclear power plants or natural gas powerplants so we can use our coal to make gas to run our current vehicles. Neither side is serious about solving the problems, only taking slightly different sides so they can blame each other.

Did you intentionally try to make it sound like only governments can build fusion plants? In the United States most of the nuclear reactors are privately owned. The government keeps an eye on them, but they are owned and operated by companies not the government. I doubt that it will be much different once we move on to fusion. Fusion is truly something that would make everyones life better and save the future for us, or make a future where the human race doesn't go back to the pre industrial revolution. No one takes the future seriously though. Wouldn't 90 billion dollars of made a good push for fusion? We spend trillions on blowing people up. If you believe the government has the right and should do something for humanity, then this is it. The sad part is it wouldn't even cost that much compared to many of the stupid and pointless things they already do. If the government is going to rob me and spend my money, and then borrow more, and spend it, then I think they should at least spend it on something useful.

Carthoris said:

That isn't a reply to my comment. My comment was on the replenishing oil theory only. I do not believe the theory myself, I was merely pointing out information on the theory that was not brought up.

Currently, the answer IS fossil fuels since without them the world grinds to a stop. There is no other answer at this time or in the near future. Whether it is coal, natural gas, or oil, the world runs on fossil fuels and it will not be in this century that we kick the habit without some huge game changer. To refuse the urgent need to continue to use fossil fuels of different types is silly at best.

Click to expand...

Wrong
only way that will be true is for lack of trying

We've been trying for 100 years or more, wishes and taxes arent going to make us magically figure this out. If somebody discovers/creates a viable renewable source they'll go down in history, as well as possibly be the worlds first trillionaire. Don't think for a sec the Boone Pickens of the world haven't already invested billions.

if it we're as simple as raising taxes on gas, clicking our heels together and making a wish it would have happened a century ago. As hard as it is to believe, hope isn't really a plan. The old saying hope in one hand shit in the other and see which action produces results applies.

ChesusRice said:

Wrong
only way that will be true is for lack of trying

Click to expand...

When you say something is wrong, it helps to say why and what exactly is wrong. I am saying we should be able to kick oil in the next 100 years, but that continued use of oil is essential to maintain civilization until at least the turn of the century. Even then 88 years is a push for being done with oil. Even if we figured out fission or whatever power source today it would be at least 30-40 years before we could really have all the plants and technology in place. Then changing the entire infrastructure to support vehicles that utilized it. We would be looking at 40-70 years and beyond even if we had a valid alternative today. We have no such alternative. I am not saying screw alternatives and lets just pump all the oil we can. We have to do both at the same time.

ginwilly said:

We've been trying for 100 years or more, wishes and taxes arent going to make us magically figure this out. If somebody discovers/creates a viable renewable source they'll go down in history, as well as possibly be the worlds first trillionaire. Don't think for a sec the Boone Pickens of the world haven't already invested billions.

if it we're as simple as raising taxes on gas, clicking our heels together and making a wish it would have happened a century ago. As hard as it is to believe, hope isn't really a plan. The old saying hope in one hand shit in the other and see which action produces results applies.

Click to expand...

Exactly what are you saying we have been trying for 100 years? Who said to raise taxes?

Henry Ford was a pioneer in alternative fuels but he had to fight our Gov tooth and nail every step of the way. They shut down this baby
[video=youtube;54vD_cPCQM8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54vD_cPCQM8[/video]
I know I've already posted this, but it's so awesome!

William Clay Ford says his dad wanted a car that ran on batteries before he died too but caught crap from big brother over that back then.

Raising taxes was a solution proposed to make us use alternative fuels. I'm not a fan but admit some very well constructed arguments were presented.

ginwilly said:

Henry Ford was a pioneer in alternative fuels but he had to fight our Gov tooth and nail every step of the way. They shut down this baby
[video=youtube;54vD_cPCQM8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54vD_cPCQM8[/video]
I know I've already posted this, but it's so awesome!

William Clay Ford says his dad wanted a car that ran on batteries before he died too but caught crap from big brother over that back then.

Raising taxes was a solution proposed to make us use alternative fuels. I'm not a fan but admit some very well constructed arguments were presented.

Click to expand...

It's a common misconception that alternate fuel source cars, such as electric cars, is a new thing. The truth of the matter is that we have had electric cars for a long time. If I do recall correctly, Romney's father had his hand in an electric car (I think, I will check if anybody would like). While we have been exploring alternate fuel sources, such as an electric cars, for almost a century- it hasn't been much of an effort at all. The reason all of the prior attempts at finding alternate energy sources failed can be blamed on one thing- Capitalism. Put away the knife and let me explain. Until recently, the need for energy efficient cars and such have been little. Why invest in a new, risky, electric car that could have many issues the consumer when gas is only a dollar per gallon? There simply hasn't been the need for alternate energy sources because for a long time we have been very fortunate with relatively low fossil fuel costs. This is all changing as we all know- Due to many reasons that won't be discussed here. But now that the time has come- That is- We now have a demand for a cheaper, cleaner (hopefully) energy source. So for all of you that don't think that we can fulfill this demand for alternate energy sources- You don't believe that capitalism and human innovation will fill the demand. I, on the other hand, do believe that we can do just that. The question is when. We have done a very good job of artificially lowering gas prices here in the U.S.- But those tactics are soon to run out- They are right now. Therefore, we are only recently see the demand for a new energy source- It will be filled as soon as conventional sources of energy become too expensive, which is now.


Also : What we need to do is subsidize these new energy sources and put a halt on Big Oil fighting tooth and nail against these new source before it's too late. (Another conversation in its own)


Note: I remember President Obama's head of energy department (can't recall the title), the Chinese guy (can't recall his name, and should say Asian b.c. idk) said something very similar to this that was taken out of context by right wingers. The conspiracy was that Obama wants high gas prices! LOL.

ginwilly said:

Henry Ford was a pioneer in alternative fuels but he had to fight our Gov tooth and nail every step of the way. They shut down this baby
[video=youtube;54vD_cPCQM8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54vD_cPCQM8[/video]
I know I've already posted this, but it's so awesome!

William Clay Ford says his dad wanted a car that ran on batteries before he died too but caught crap from big brother over that back then.

Raising taxes was a solution proposed to make us use alternative fuels. I'm not a fan but admit some very well constructed arguments were presented.

Click to expand...

The issue with biodiesel is the land you have to use to grow biodiesel isn't just about growing biodiesel. It also has impacts on many other things like the food supply.

Gas is already taxed pretty heavily. I don't see any benefit in raising taxes on it since the money would be funneled away for something else anyway. Speaking for myself, the governments over me already get about 20% of my wages, 7% when I spend it on normal things(aside from food) and then more when I buy gas. Then when I look at my electric and communications bills I see a whole bunch of bullshit charges that might as well say "ass rape" beside them instead of communications surcharge tax or whatever. This doesn't even count the inflation they intentionally cause which is a hidden tax of 3-10% depending on how you look at it. If the Government can't figure out how to fund everything with what is 1/3 to 1/2 of what I make a year, then there is a severe fucking problem.

Raising the price of gas would also raise the price of all the products that rely on it, and that would curb demand by decimating the economy. While energy needs would certainly go down it would be a result of no one having any jobs to drive to or any products to deliver because no one could really buy them and not just from trying to save money by not driving around wastefully.

Carthoris said:

The issue with biodiesel is the land you have to use to grow biodiesel isn't just about growing biodiesel. It also has impacts on many other things like the food supply.

Gas is already taxed pretty heavily. I don't see any benefit in raising taxes on it since the money would be funneled away for something else anyway. Speaking for myself, the governments over me already get about 20% of my wages, 7% when I spend it on normal things(aside from food) and then more when I buy gas. Then when I look at my electric and communications bills I see a whole bunch of bullshit charges that might as well say "ass rape" beside them instead of communications surcharge tax or whatever. This doesn't even count the inflation they intentionally cause which is a hidden tax of 3-10% depending on how you look at it. If the Government can't figure out how to fund everything with what is 1/3 to 1/2 of what I make a year, then there is a severe fucking problem.

Raising the price of gas would also raise the price of all the products that rely on it, and that would curb demand by decimating the economy. While energy needs would certainly go down it would be a result of no one having any jobs to drive to or any products to deliver because no one could really buy them and not just from trying to save money by not driving around wastefully.

Click to expand...

Firstly, this notion that bio fuels would inhibit food production is a ruse - some of the highest oil bearing crops grow on marginal land, land that is useless for food crops. Soy and corn are not reasonable fuel crops much as big ag wishes you to believe it.

Secondly, I composed responses to some of your earlier posts several times and each time lost the entire composition, I will go back after I return from the Doc and try again.

I posted at some length about raising taxes on traditional energy sources in order to equalize the opportunity for alternative fuels. I said that we are not even now paying the true cost of fossil fuels and that we as a nation are spoiled by the presumption that what we pay at the pump is the actul cost of the fuel - it is not.

You can bitch all you want about taxation being a contributing factor in the price of your fuel but when the fireworks start, the fuel prices will rise anyway, and the predominance of revenue won't even stay within our borders.

Raising the price of gas in an orderly way will clear the field for alternatives and encourge their implementation in a planned manner rather than our having to deal with the crisis of uncontroled costs.

Carthoris said:

Even if we figured out fission or whatever power source today it would be at least 30-40 years before we could really have all the plants and technology in place. .

Click to expand...

So why even try?

cause when the going gets tough, the tough gets going. One star thread. Politics on a cannabis forum is gay. Don't care if that was 'politically correct' of me to say. lol