Bobco23's Comments

What Will the U.S. Economy Look Like in 10 Years? Look to Greece

Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:06:24 -0500

California?

On Nov 29 01:04 AM chris coonan wrote:

> Hopefully the party crashers at the White House gave Obama some good
> ideas about how to pull us out of this mess. If anything, crashing
> a party is economically prudent.
>
> Iceland, Greece, Dubai...where next?

Employment: Neither Quality Nor Quantity

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:29:02 -0500

Under capitalism man exploits man.
Under socialism its the reverse.

To that little homily you should understand that under capitalism the individual makes choices, under socialism, the state makes them for you; and not to your best interest. See world history.

On Nov 08 11:36 AM just mike wrote:

> I've seen this guy on CNBC a few times and now spent the morning
> reading several of his articles. I find him completely negative about
> everything the government and markets have done and are doing.
I
> thank my lucky stars that he isn't running the country or the pain
> the common man would endure would be unbearable since the wealthy
> such as himself would come through it fine and on the backs and the
> suffering of the common man.
> He is a pure capitalist without any social conscience.

Report from Europe: Stocks Up Ahead of Key Earnings Week

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:39:04 -0400

Thanks for the remarks on AAUK. It is hard to find timely news on this company.

How to Profit From Greenhouse Gas Emission Restrictions and Incentives

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:06:15 -0400

Let's see. the atmosphere is made up of 78% N, 21% O2, and 1% of other stuff. CO2 is a small component of "other stuff." Man contributes less than 2% of the CO2 "pollution." So 2% of 1% is 2 ten thousandths of a percent. Man made global warming from CO2 is a scam.

The only ones who believe in it are fools and those who stand to profit from the scam.

The Great Shift: China Rising, U.S. Falling

Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:42:52 -0400

I too am a simple accountant. The rationale for "free trade" never made sense to me, although like you, I have had that "religion" crammed down on me throughtout my university and business years. What corporation would open its market's freely to a competitor? The core business concept is to create a unique product or service or to obtain a competetive advantage to preclude others from entering (destroying) the corporation's market.

On a more philosophical sense, what good does it do America to open it's markets to elevate the overall prosperity of the world if in that process, the overall prosperity of the US declines? We have grown the pie through free trade, but greatly deminished the size of our slice.

We should begin build a system of "market access" fees to level the playing field against cheap labor and other market advantages enjoyed by foreign producers. Call these tariffs if you will (our country was initially financed on tariffs, until we discovered the wonderful concept of income taxes), but I prefer to think of them as "slotting" fees, similar to those used by supermarket chains.

In any event your post on the question of social cost in the quest of lowest cost production (for conspicious consumption) is one we hear too infrequently. Seeing your post gives me hope we will someday move past the alter of "free trade", because it isn't.

> A few comments on the Chinese ascendancy / US decadence meme:
>
> 1. China has developed and presently recognized the other side of
> the aggressive mercantilist policy. For example, so much of the state
> funding has gone into heavy industrial capacity, that the state has
> imposed a prohibition on the construction of new aluminum smelting
> plants, etc. This overcapacity can only be absorbed by steady foreign
> buying, and the US market will continue to be an important element.
> Just based on the size and maturity of its markets, the US can only
> fall so far, even if it is nowhere near its former heights .
>
> 2. US deindustrialization has been a long ongoing process (I remember
> writing papers and debating the matter as a university student in
> the 1980s, by which time there was already a considerable literature).
> The only possible remedy is a governmental policy solution which
> will be highly controversial. For example, the firm in which I work,
> a US manufacturer, was late to the Asia import game and entered only
> reluctantly. At that point, our competitors were "all in" and began
> to undercut our prices materially, so we faced a stark choice: either
> join the foreign sourcing party, or go out of business. In either
> case, we could not sustain the same level of domestic production
> and employment.
>
> We chose the lesser of two evils, and still employ some US manufacturing
> workers. Margins have eroded anyway, because buyers know the foreign
> sourced product is cheaper, and nobody in our industry has much pricing
> power. We live and raise our families in these communities, and would
> have preferred to maintain full employment. That would only have
> been economically feasible if something like a tariff had decreased
> the cost gap between foreign sourced and domestically produced goods.
> Is that an argument for protectionism? Would such a thing be viable?
> I understand perfectly well what economists say, having been educated
> by them.
>
> What about the indirect hard and soft social costs of deindustrialization?
> Unemployment insurance, law enforcement and prisons, falling property
> values, etc, social stability, human happiness. How much do any of
> these matter? Certainly the economists will have their answers for
> these as well.

Defense Contractors Pursue the Smart Grid

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:17:59 -0400

OK, let me get this straight. We now have a hacker proof "dumb" system, impervious to terriorist remote threats. Now we want to change this to a "smart" grid, vulnerable to terriorist remote hacking and disruption (read: destruction and death). Finally, we want the government in on this plan.

Sounds good to me. (not!)

Peak Oil: A Reality or a Lie?

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:13:51 -0400

Anybody interested in making money?

Most of the comments admit to future shortages, but assert that high prices will bring on demand, or they seek to place blame, or they seek to promote their personal solutions.

Anybody interested in making money?

If we all agree prices are going up, the SA question is, "Where can we most profitably invest", not who is to blame or how the world will evolve.

IMHO those companies with the most proven/potential OWNED reserves per cost (equity price) of ownership are the ones that will pay off the most over the short/medium term. (and if they pay rich dividends currently, so much the better). Isn't that what we are all looking for?

I can't feed my family on blame and ideas for fixes.

Anybody interested in making money?

Religious Muslims Now Have an ETF to Call Their Own

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:35:40 -0400

Peace?

This just in: from the Noble Quran, Surah 9:5

"Fight and slay the Pagans (non-Muslims) wherever you find them, and seize them, beleagure them, and lie in wait for them is every strategem (of war).."

You might also want to "educate" yourself by also reading the following Surahs: 4:89,47:4,9:123,8:67,8... and 5:51.
You can find all of them on the internet.

Isalm is the only major religion that REQUIRES believers to murder unbelievers.

The sarcastic comments you denegrate are on target. You, sir, are the ignorant one.

On Jul 07 09:39 PM oas wrote:

> marli andrew butter and others, i want to thank you for your comments.
> its sad to see even on this site i still witness idiots from all
> walks of life. those who dont know anything on islam...which 99%
> of you dont, i strongly suggest you read on islam..i can turn around
> and say..all capitalists are murderers..didnt they drop the atomic
> bomb??.and loads of comments..but it wont get us anywhere..so again
> i appreciate those who have made positive comments on islam and muslims..and
> for the record, your "capitalists" anglo saxon "barbarians" be european
> or north american, have actually studied the islamic financial models
> and economics and have stated many positive comments..wishing that
> it could apply to this society..shalom, salam peace

Cap-and-Trade Plan: Climate Change Reactions

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:32:04 -0400

There is a BIG question that global warming is real. Take the effort to read some contrarian opinions. Pick any of a bunch of sites off the web. Science is a process of forming a theory and testing it and accepting it, then retesting it again and again, always trying to disprove what is assummed. When I hear the "jury is out. There is no discussion," I know for sure there IS valid discussion.

Exxon and the other corporations can tell which way the tide is running. They are not going to stand in front of this train and lead the charge against the green house gas global warming sham. They will only draw criticism and skepticism. They have been cowered and know how to play a weak hand.

Here's the bottom line. If you believe in global warming, you are either a fool or in on the scam.

On Jun 28 09:21 AM CaptainJJack wrote:

> I have really mixed emotions.
>
> On the one hand, there is no question that global warming is real
> and getting worse. Nothing is ever completely certain in science,
> but when the National Academy of Sciences and the tree huggers at
> Exxon Mobil agree that it is a problem, it is a problem.
>
> For me, the biggest issue is that we are losing the snow pack in
> the Sierras and the Cascades, and more importantly, the Rockies.
> Of course, the snow pack levels vary from year to year, but on average,
> it is going, and the snow level is rising.
>
> If you want to see clear evidence, just take a trip to Lake Powell
> which is fed by the Colorado River.
>
> In short, the problem for me is not so much too much ocean water,
> it is too little fresh water. Fresh water is going to become precious.
>
>
> On the other hand, with China bringing on a cagillion coal fired
> power plants, ALL of the rest of the world's efforts get canceled
> out. Why should we put ourselves at an even bigger trade disadvantage
> with China?
>
> Still, I lean towards doing something vs doing nothing. At the very
> least, SOME kind of carbon tax (even if it is cap and trade) will
> encourage more investment in energy efficiency, and longer term,
> that is better for us, even if China doesn't go along.
>
> And, the Chinese are no fools. If they think we are going to end
> up with a competitive advantage by focusing on newer technologies,
> I am pretty sure they will change direction quickly.

Why Marc Faber Is Wrong About the CPI

Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:43:48 -0400

Excellent point.

I would add that government at all levels has no credibility. Even if the measurements were fair and representative of "inflation", few of us are going to believe the government.

On Jun 21 04:07 PM sabre_jenn wrote:

> I don't think you and Faber are on the same page... I did not see
> Faber's CNBC interview, but I heard him speak in person recently
> (and he usually talks about the same things).
>
> Faber is talking about actual inflation experienced by the "average
> consumer" -- better known as the cost of living. A few comments note
> above that many prices such as utilities, education (college or local
> via property taxes) and healthcare are growing double digits, while
> the only things going down are stocks and home prices. The cost of
> living is skyrocketing.
>
> According to the BLS, CPI is supposed to be a **PRICE** index, not
> a cost of living index. That many people misuse CPI as an inflation
> measure does not change the fact that it is not an inflation measure
> -- it says so right on the BLS's website.
>
> As for the examples cited in the article -- I think the author did
> a lot to discredit CPI as either a cost of living index or a price
> index.
>
> For example, the article says health care and insurance are weighted
> 6.4% and 2.8% respectively. That's great in la-la land of government,
> but in the real world, health care spending is around 15% of GDP
> -- so says Obama, Republicans, insurance companies, hospitals, pharamaceutical
> companies, AARP, and the GAO. Basically, both political parties,
> as well as major suppliers and consumers of health care, all agree
> the correct weighting is around 15%
>
> The BLS weghting of 6.4% is just plain wrong, and the authors attempts
> to label detractors as conspiracy theorists just makes him look foolish.
> The correct weighting should be something close to 15%.
>
> Gross misweightings such as health care make CPI rather deceptive
> for its intended use as a PRICE index.
>
> CPI was never an appropriate gauge for cost of living -- no matter
> how many contracts use it as such. Even the BLS agrees with that

What's the Real Cost of the Cap-and-Trade Program?

Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:35:42 -0400

Not only is it idiotic, it is a scam. The only people that believe in global warmning (or now called climate change to cover all possibilities) are fools and those in on the scam.

From an investment standpoint we can load up on the green plays for now, including cap and trade, but keep a tight stop. One day the crowd will declare the king has no clothes and the green play will replicate the dot com play.

On Jun 21 10:15 AM Dukk wrote:

> Sometimes sublety doesn't work...cap and trade is idiotic.

California's Permanent Crisis

Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:28:02 -0400

The implications of any level of government being forced to cut costs in half makes me giddy. The tax and spend, grow and control paradigm is over. The beauty of it all is that CA is the first to fall.

On Jun 21 07:53 PM Northstar10000 wrote:

> They are in a complete state of unbelief. They have always have spent
> a ton and taxed a lot, never giving a thought to the idea that it
> could only end in tears. Wait until the magic potion of the market
> takes over and they see how much the scared cows howell. Start with
> the University of Cal budget. Cut prof's salaries in half. they do
> nothing, I know, I am one....

California Can't Print Money

Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:09:59 -0400

California may be the light at the end of the tunnel.

Apparently there is a limit to taxation, the lifeblood of government. This could be the tipping point when the 100 year growth in government implodes under its own weight.

Thanks CA. This is the only thing good you have ever done for the rest of us.

Has Obama Run Out of Maneuvering Room Already?

Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:15:14 -0400

Small problem. 100 million times $1 million equals $1,000 trillion (with a "T"). That would cause the mother of all inflation. Just a back of the envelope calculation, but the dollar of today would be worth about 5 one hundredths of a cent. A better plan would be to just stop spending more than is taken in.

On Jun 11 12:50 PM Donald Ingram wrote:

> An open letter to President Obama.
> Dear Sir,
> There are approximately 100 million 'first wave' baby boomers between
> the ages of 50 and 65. Instead of giving trillions more to banks
> and car companies, why not give 1 million dollars apiece to this
> group as severance pay on the following stipulations:
> 1. They MUST retire. Tens of millions of job openings. Unemployment
> fixed.
> 2. They MUST buy a brand new made in America car. Auto industry fixed.
>
> 3. They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage. Housing
> crises fixed.
> 4. They MUST send their kids or grand kids to school/college/university
> - crime rate lowered.
> 5. They MUST buy $50 of alcohol/tobacco/gasoline per week. There's
> a good portion of your money back in duty/tax etc.
>
> P.S. If more money is required have members of the senate and congress
> pay back their fat expense claims and pork barrel takings, along
> with the banksters obscenely high bonuses.
> Thank You.

Is the Employment Picture Really Better Now than in 1933?

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:31:40 -0400

Brilliant teacher of macroeconomics? Not likely. To pin the economic distress of today, the origin of which began after WW2 with the creation of the credit economy, on Bush is infantile.

On Jun 09 09:23 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:

> This is a very interesting and well written paper. The problem is
> that age-wise I am almost certainly closer than the author to the
> depression generation, and so I don't have to believe what that gentleman
> believes. In addition there was a short period when I was a brilliant
> teacher of macroeconomics, however even if I had never opened a macro
> book I could never accept the author's bottom line. Things are bad
> now, however it seemed to me that it required a war to scale down
> the Depression.
>
> I will admit though that the present government will have to do a
> lot of work to correct the mistakes of Mr Bush, and I for one hope
> that it doesn't attempt to solve the problems of the US while being
> overly concerned with the many shortcomings and woes of foreign friends
> and allies.

Is the Employment Picture Really Better Now than in 1933?

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:27:10 -0400

I was downsized in1997 at age 57. I went out and got another job. I still detest liberals.

On Jun 09 07:53 AM redbaron wrote:

> Good thoughts, well presented, and I agree with the main concepts.
> As I mentioned yesterday in another SA discussion on the unemployment
> rate, I quit using this statistic for economic activity measurement
> when calculation methodology was changed several years ago.
>
> I was gainfully employed for 31 years, and was a member of the working
> class until 1996, when at the age of 54 my long time employer decided
> that I was no longer needed, and could legally downsize me without
> repurcussions. That event changed me forever, and my political attitude
> was adjusted to the left, from slightly to the right of center. I
> often wonder how others political attitudes have similarly changed
> as a result of similar events.

National Sales Tax on the Way?

Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:33:05 -0400

The really great thing about the VAT tax is that the Osama voters are going to bear the brut of the total tax package increase. The productive people are already carrying the tax load. With VAT, the free riders get to join the misery in a major way. Sweet.

On Jun 04 08:22 AM russ wrote:

> I like the simplicity of the VAT and the fact it is figured in the
> price of an article. Having traveled in Europe many times, I think
> it is more up front than the phoney "on sale for $ 9.95" when the
> full price is much more when you add the tax. There is no need to
> be in a panic. If it is approached correctly and helps replace other
> taxes it could be a thoughtful improvement. However, in the USA,
> and in most Seeking Alpha columns, right wing knee jerk reactions
> seem to be the norm

Worst-Case Scenario for Geithner Is Here

Sat, 09 May 2009 22:58:33 -0400

I have some WW2 .30 cal ammo. Works everytime. The out-date is apparently a very long time.

On May 08 05:43 PM anarchist wrote:

> History Buff 24//7, You sound like your reading from a subscription
> to one of Dr. Gary North's newsletters - in 1976 that is. Ancient
> history that never happened. All those survival kits wasted unless
> your one of those that got tired of waiting for the apocalypse plus
> your dried foods were expiring so you ate that tasteless stuff. Is
> there any out-date on ammo?

Worst-Case Scenario for Geithner Is Here

Sat, 09 May 2009 22:56:51 -0400

Ditch socialism and embrace capitalism.

On May 09 03:09 PM bbowen7 wrote:

> Here in California the published unemployment rate is 11.2%. What
> do we need to do to get back to 10%?????

CEOs Must Bring Investors Along for the Ride (WSJ)

Sun, 03 May 2009 16:36:08 -0400

Having worked at senior levels of small and major corporations, I can tell you with complete confidence, there are dozens of highly qualified executives ready to take the helm in the event the current grossly overpaid CEO leaves in a huff over pay. There is no lack of top talent. Let the CEOs walk.

sonearsofar has the answer to the problem, seperate the CEO from the chairman of the BOD and change the way directors are nominated. Companies will not do this voluntarily. The current CEO/Chariman will not allow it. Sadly, the only hope is for the government (ugh) to change the rules for the election of directors. Until that happens, directors will be like minded as those who appoint them (the annual election is a Soviet style scam) and beholding to the CEO for their lucrative positions. Maybe the BAC fiasco will result in some of these needed changes. The government forced separation of the CEO and chairman are a good beginning.

Why Hyperinflation Is Not Coming

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:51:10 -0400

Excellent arguments on both sides, but how do you invest in either (or both) outcome? A barbell approach with commodities and cash on one end and bonds and utilities on the other?

Oil and Stocks Have Bottomed, But Their Paths Forward Vary

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:03:12 -0400

Wow. Bush is responsible for all the woes that have ever happened in the history of the world!

Good thing we now have such new (?) leadership in Nany Palosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Hussein Obama. They will make everything right.

Right.

It's Not a Recession, It's the New Reality

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 14:51:53 -0400

I believe I have the answers to your questions.

1) No.
2) No.
3) No.

The world has indeed changed, and given my above answere, it's going to change for the worse.

On Apr 12 09:16 AM ferguson wrote:

> "Reality" is a many headed hydra. The "reality" of human life is
> that the future is not known with any degree of certainty because
> we have gained the capacity to change it. The technological revolution
> of the past 250 years has altered "reality" dramatically, including
> both extraordinary benefits and extraordinary dangers. The technological
> revolution of the next 100 is likely to do the same.
>
> The real questions are: 1. whether we have the personal and political
> courage to act responsibly in dealing with the dangers; 2. whether
> we have the vision and leadership necessary to create (not just accept)
> a sustainable "reality;" 3. Whether we have the wisdom and restraint
> necessary to invest wisely and in the long term interest of life
> on earth rather than in pursuit of immediate self aggrandizement.
>
>
> It is of interest that piracy has flowered on the high seas at the
> same time that it has flowered on Wall Street. I am not speaking
> particularly about the bankers and financial engineers who have responsible
> for the housing mortgage fraud, but about the whole culture that
> has allowed boards of directors, executives and employees to hijack
> corporate America and divert its productivity from owners (shareholders)
> to their own benefit.
>
> The question is not whether we spent too much money or borrowed too
> much. The question is what we borrowed for and what we spent it on.
> If we had borrowed and spent it on energy efficiency, education and
> infrastructure, we would be in great shape. Instead we spent it on
> fat cats, 20,000 square foot houses, $50,000 weddings and $100,000
> vacations.
>
> The "new reality" should include a new definition of "The Wealth
> of Nations."

Peak Oil: China vs. USA

Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:26:36 -0400

Realold,

Like you I have been around a few years. You point out a critical issue that no one else (author and commentors included) seem to grasp. A great deal of our inaction on an energy plan can be traced to the environmentalists. They are the responsible parties for the lack of exploration and drilling on "big oil's" existing leases. They are the ones preventing a nuclear power solution to electricity production (Harry Reid, anyone?). They are the ones filing lawsuits to prevent grid construction, pipeline infrastructure, LNG, and on and on. Any energy policy to have any chance of success is going to have to limit the envoronmentalists. And that, given the track record of the last two decades; is just not going to happen.

Buy oil companies. Buy US oil and gas royalty trusts.
On Apr 10 03:00 PM realold wrote:

> A great article/rant and lively feedback. I agree with much, but
> think everyone misses the point. Obama represents the most liberal
> and extreme green elements of society. Their shared goals include
> as little use of energy as possible, reduced standard of living and
> mobility to "save the earth".
>
> Natural gas is too easy and too cheap. It might actually help improve
> the standard of living and then people might not need Obama anymore.
>
>
> Greenies want you at home in front of the TV (a smaller one -see
> California legislature bill to ban large screen tv's as energy wasteful)
> and away from the wilderness areas that belong to the animals and
> Sierra Club.
>
> I know, wild rants from an old guy. But, I do hope some of you wake
> up to what is really happening as the VP said "no crisis will go
> unused".

Why Is Oil Trading at $53 When Supply and Demand Is So Bearish?

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:25:17 -0400

Artfuldodger, count me in on your co2 position. The only people who believe that manmade co2 is causing global warming are fools and those in on the scam.

On Mar 24 01:31 PM ArtfulDodger wrote:

> Fitz:
>
> Good article overall. Thanks. I'm a little early on some of the NG
> plays, such as DOM & SBR, but I agree that NG should play a bigger
> part in powering the nation before long.
>
> Have you ever been to the TN Valley? I travel the area every summer
> and I've not seen all the pollution you mentioned. If it's there
> and you've been there, point me to it. I'd like to see it myself.
>
>
> I'm not a hater of CO2 as you and so many are. We need more of it
> in my opinion. It is after all part of the all-important to all life
> photosynthesis.
>
> Thus, I go along with the view that because we've created more of
> it burning natural fuels, trees are more plentiful, more healthy,
> and humans and animals are as healthy as they are because of it.
>
>
> Keep up the good work. I like your writing in respect to investing,
> but I'd like to see you leave your ideology out of it. Besides, you're
> preaching to the choir on this site in respect to shutting down the
> use of natural fuels for power.

Five Leadership Lessons From Obama's Second Month

Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:53:06 -0400

So what will his rating be a year from now?

Inflation and the national debt will be way up; the former indicated by the market's focus on commodities and the later promised by b.o. Reported unemployment will be over 10% (officially) and real unemployment even higher. The economy will stagnate with higher taxes and lower demand. More of his staff will be discoved to have engaged in tax cheating. His lofty generalizing speeches will wear thin. Mockery will begin. All we need is a 911 incident to complete his "leadership."

AIG Bonuses Are Just the Tip of the Iceberg

Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:50:00 -0400

Carthage was not destroyed by its own mercenaries.

1). It did not employ mercenaries and
2) it was destroyed by the Roman army in a progression of 3 wars, which you may recall from your high school history class as the Punic Wars.

The first Punic War was fought from 264-241 BC and resulted in territorial losses for Carthage and reparations. The Second Punic War was fought from 218 to 201 BC and resulted in subjugation and submission to Roman authority as well as greater reparations. The Third Punic War was fought from 149-146 BC at the urging of Cato the Elder and was percipitated by Carthage violating a provision not to take action against aggression without permission from Rome, which they did not get. The citizens of Carthatge fought the Romans in the streets of the city for weeks, but finally succumbed to the superior Roman army. The survivors were sold into slavery, the city burned, and the soil sowed with salt.

There were no Carthaginian mercenaries involved to turn against the citizens of Carthage, although it is likely the Romans had several legions of mercenaries.

On Mar 18 07:49 PM european_pov wrote:

> The argument saying "you have to pay bonuses to keep them" proves
> one point : the top management of financial firms is just made of
> mercenaries. Maybe good at their jobs (?) but absolutely not commited
> to it. The fact that "11 top managers letf AOG despite of the bonuses
> being paid" confirms the point. The fact that "if they leave they
> will work against us" confirms the point. Compare that with the commitment
> and the (far leaner) salaries of doctors, researchers, teachers working
> hard and with passion to increase the nation knowledge; with what
> the guy in the local store earns for the necessary services and goods
> he provides with a smile to his customers. Those pay the bill. Is
> it a good thing to give mercenaries so much power as to make the
> whole system crash ? Remember what happened to the old city of Carthage
> destroyed by its own mercenaries.

Book Review: Robert Hefner's 'The Grand Energy Transition'

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:30:22 -0400

Nice StarTrek view into the future.

Most of us will be dead before hydrogen becomes a viable, cost effective, and practical fuel. A lot of us older guys will be dead before solar has any significant impact for our energy sources. Solar works a bit locally, but the transmission loss to pump it from sunshine states to the rest of the country makes it impractical to be more than a minor component of a varied energy source. The same is true of wind, hydro, and tidal electric generators.

The environmentalist are incharge at the white house and congress, so we will dream the dream of "clean energy", subsidize unprofitable producers, and squander opportunities for practical solutions.

Those who see nat gas as the most viable transportation fuel are correct. Nuclear is the best for electric production, buy Harry Reid is killing this alternative by preventing a solution to the waste storage area problem. Electric cars are ok if they are hybrids using waste energy from the vehicle's motion, but if you consider the transmission loss on energy for true battery powered vehicles, you find that the total "cradle to grave" cost is prohibitive.

Foreign oil is among other things, a national security threat. We must get off of it as fast as we can.

Man-made global warming and CO2? Anyone who believes in this is either a fool or in on the scam.

Obama's Un-Stimulus Package

Sun, 08 Mar 2009 22:10:50 -0400

Mr. Rickman. You are an intelligent and experienced man, but your ultra-liberal prejudices cloud your vision and judgement.

Here is reality:

Islam has as its basic object to conquor the world (you may want to read up on Hitler and Stalin....same goal). Bin Laden, Al Qadea, and others tell us this and show us this daily. These guys are serious. Remember 911? Did you learn nothing from this? The Bush Doctrine is to eleminate the enemy before they do severe damage to our citizens and property. This is not unlike a police officer arresting an individual with a weapon threatening another before the perpetrator has an opportunity to kill his victim.

Moderate Muslims, who would rather live out happy lives in peace are easily intimidated by the violence of the true believers. The goal of the effort in Iraq was to take a chance on creating a democratic santuary in the Middle-East where moderate Muslims stood a chance of prevailing and serving as catalyists for other moderates in other countries. Without the US they stand no chance. If they stand no chance, the violent islamists will preval and ultimately we will be forced to kill a lot of people in order for us to survive. A lot of people!

Protecting the citizens of the US is the only valid responsibility of the national government. The federal government should not be involved in healt-care, mortgage default management, GM bailouts or any of the insane programs that have been forced on the citizens. Obama's programs are doomed to failure. (See the recent stock market's performance for a vote on these policies by people who have "skin in the game).

Part of the cost of protection of our nation is the aftermath costs of war and the care of our returning soldiers. We cannot spend enough money caring and rehabilitating and prospering all our servicemen.

Oh, one more thing. Man made climate change is a scam. Those who believe in it are either idiots or in on the scam.

On Mar 08 07:49 AM Invisible Costs of the Iraq War wrote:

> By James Rickman , (Author / Entrepreneur – March 8, 2009)
>
> Most breathed a sigh of relief as the new President announced the
> troops would return from Iraq by the end of August 2010. Gee, what
> a treat for their sacrifices. They return to a country trillions
> of dollars in debt, financial chaos, Wall Street bailouts, growing
> 10% unemployment, increased crime, school budget cuts, and broken
> healthcare systems. It should be no wonder if a solider or two questions
> just what their sacrifices really accomplished.
>
> So far very little open national dialogue has focused around caring
> for the returning soldiers, the “invisible” costs of the Iraq war.
> For example, a recent RAND Center- National Security Research Division
> study found that of the 1.64 million troops deployed since October
> 2001; of those an estimated 620,000 return with invisible wounds
> including, serious mental health and cognitive disabilities: post-traumatic
> stress disorder (seekingalpha.com/symbo...), major suicidal
> depression and traumatic brain injury (seekingalpha.com/symbo...).
>
>
> Given the sobering statistics, perhaps the national dialogue might
> pause just for a moment from its focus on Wall Street bailouts, to
> consider the lifetime costs associated with war time lost lives,
> injuries, and medical treatments estimated at between $700 billion
> and $1.2 trillion through 2015.
>
> For example, annual costs of a single service member diagnosed with
> moderate traumatic brain injury reached $383,227 in 2007. All of
> these related conditions affect mood, thoughts, and behavior; yet
> these invisible wounds often go unrecognized and unacknowledged.
> The effects of mental health and traumatic brain injury are sometimes
> poorly understood, leaving a large gap in knowledge related to how
> extensive the problem is or how to address it.
>
> Several studies show Iraq war veterans are found to return with very
> high rates of suicide, intimate / marriage relationship and substance
> abuse problems, unable to hold jobs, homelessness, and other disabling
> social issues. It will require significant trained medical staffing
> to coordinate the large numbers of soldiers and their families that
> will seek treatment some for the rest of their lives.
>
> Most would not dispute that mistakes were made in launching the Iraqi
> military campaign but we should accept what has occurred remaining
> focused on providing the best possible treatment for those men and
> woman returning with invisible wounds.
>
> The 1.64 million brave soldiers gave their hearts and sole in support
> of our country despite many questions that will linger on forever
> as to the mission and its effectiveness in accomplishing any significant
> tangible goals that actually improve the daily lives of Americans.
>
>
> Based on the facts one must ask former President, George W. Bush;
> was the Iraq war more important than investing in competitive jobs,
> better education for our kids, crumbling infrastructure and healthcare
> for the 48-million plus Americans with no medical coverage?
>
> Are Americans more secure as a result of the Iraqi war? Was it all
> simply a misguided distraction during years of opportunity to investment
> in rebuilding at a predictably critical strategic time that would
> have enabled the United States of America to maintain it’s now lost
> global leadership role.
>
> Were there other critical national security interests to begin planning
> for such as the coming “clean water” crisis, already being addressed
> by many Asian countries, that has the potential to devastate large
> segments of global populations effecting food supply, disease sanitation,
> and employment?
>
> For example, California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenagger’s declared
> a state-of-emergency due to draught and clean water issues that have
> cost that state over $2.8 billion and 95,000 jobs lost in 2008.
>
>
> This is only a small preview of the coming global clean water crisis
> that could leave 20% of the Earth’s species extinct, one fact already
> being studied by leading scientist such Dr. James Martin of the Oxford
> University Institute of Science & Civilization.
>
> Perhaps these questions bare serious scrutiny and truthful answers,
> so that future decisions of national security involving trillions
> of tax-payer dollars are better spent next time on directly improving
> people’s lives.
>
> As the new President, Obama stated, “the time of reckoning” has arrived.
> Every one of our citizens should make standard of living sacrifices
> for the good of the whole. By 2025 the worldwide population is calculated
> to exceed eight (8) billion people, a level that will consume resources
> beyond the capacity found on Earth.
>
> Obama made his initial opening move on a health care overhaul last
> week: his speech to Congress and a budget that set aside $634 billion
> over 10 years as a down payment on coverage for all Americans. It’s
> a goal that could ultimately cost $1 trillion or more.
>
> The Obama Health Plan attempts to expand coverage while slowing the
> rate of increase in costs. Administration officials say they hope
> that will lead to a more affordable system, without the coverage
> gaps that now leave an estimated 48-million people uninsured.
>
> Regardless of how the crisis dialogue is often presented, the fact
> remains starting in 2010 the Iraq mission will end as thousands of
> soldiers that have been deployed for months and years will return
> to our country. Over one-third of the returning soldiers are known
> to require temporary and costly lifetime disability treatment for
> invisible wounds, a symptom of their sacrifice to our country.

>
> The costs of being misguided with neat campaign slogans is the real,
> “shock and awe” that will haunt America not in some far off land
> but rather increasingly close at home requiring we deliver truthful
> answers to the people of our country so that we can find innovative
> practical solutions.
>
> How could we have been lead so astray? JFK once said, “We have nothing
> to fear but fear it- self”. In this case these are fitting words
> to ponder, we might all take a moment to examine the depth of “fear”
> tactics that were used to manipulate many decent people.
>
> Did the facts ever really exist to justify launching the decade long
> war costing trillions of American tax-payer dollars that resulted
> in the displacement of an estimated 5.2 million Iraqi people?
>
> Instead of chasing “terrorists” and non-existent WMDs in Iraq, should
> we have used that money here at home to rebuild tangible national
> security interests including, innovative training and education systems,
> sustainable infrastructure and affordable health care?
>
> Throughout history America has always lead the world not only as
> an economic power but even more important is its defining role as
> the “truthful, moral and ethical” beckon of light inspiring people
> worlwide.
>
> Perhaps, we should each thoughtfully consider the millions of citizens,
> soldiers and their family’s lives that could have been spared the
> scars of deep wounds that will cost this country and others worldwide
> for generations. Finally it’s useful to remember the guide of directly
> improving people’s daily lives in all our future decisions.
>
> About Author
>
> As the Founding principal partner of Sustainable Virtual BiZ, LLC.
> Mr. Rickman has over 18-years of enterprise experience and he’s an
> expert in sustainable “green” virtual business support services.
> He is a member of the Oregon Sustainability Angels Network - venture
> capital association.
>
> He is a Founding Director of Business Development for Artel Software,
> Inc., IMAGRAPH Corporation, and Interactive MicroSystems, Inc. He
> is a sought after published technical evangelist including COMDEX
> (Consumer Electronics) and the (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> National Association of Broadcasters. He holds advanced degrees from
> Boston University.
>
> Mr. Rickman enjoys involvement in educational service roles within
> the Portland State University, Hillsboro, and Beaverton, Oregon community.
> His hobbies include reading, golf, SCUBA, hiking, kayaking, and fishing.
> sustainablevirtualbiz....

How Much Downside Could Still Exist?

Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:33:13 -0500

Under capitalism, man exploits man.

Under socialism, it's the reverse.

On Mar 03 09:59 AM boats wrote:

> There you go confusing freedom and capitalism. Capitalism makes slaves
> of 99% of the population.