gashouse gorilla's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/162218/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/110554-10-an-hour-pay-gap-billions-of-extra-dollars-a-year?source=feed#comment-331673 331673
>> Unions suck, always have.

I got mixed feelings about unions now. But, they "always have" sucked? You're being extremely ingrateful. Next time a coal mine collapses and kills someone in West Virginia, go read up on the history of unions forcing employers to improve worker safety.]]> Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:05:42 -0500
>> Unions suck, always have.

I got mixed feelings about unions now. But, they "always have" sucked? You're being extremely ingrateful. Next time a coal mine collapses and kills someone in West Virginia, go read up on the history of unions forcing employers to improve worker safety.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/110554-10-an-hour-pay-gap-billions-of-extra-dollars-a-year?source=feed#comment-331671 331671
Stay humble.




On Dec 14 09:54 AM macanic wrote:

> You go to hell, you are the one without a clue. As far as being industry
> friendly, you can't beat the Southern states.
>
> The people here know more about hard work than any place in this
> nation.
>
> At least we still know what the word PRIDE means, which is why we
> are getting all the industry now. Unions suck, always have. The end
> result is Detroits present state.
>
> The South is rising again, and the North is just pissed because they
> have pissed all their opportunities way by their greedy nature.
> ]]> Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:57:31 -0500
Stay humble.




On Dec 14 09:54 AM macanic wrote:

> You go to hell, you are the one without a clue. As far as being industry
> friendly, you can't beat the Southern states.
>
> The people here know more about hard work than any place in this
> nation.
>
> At least we still know what the word PRIDE means, which is why we
> are getting all the industry now. Unions suck, always have. The end
> result is Detroits present state.
>
> The South is rising again, and the North is just pissed because they
> have pissed all their opportunities way by their greedy nature.
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/95813-the-mess-on-wall-street-4-trillion-down-the-drain?source=feed#comment-256644 256644
Just like scientists who, in order to pay the mortgage, follow the orders of the MBA's who pay them.]]> Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:05:43 -0400
Just like scientists who, in order to pay the mortgage, follow the orders of the MBA's who pay them.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/95623-russian-oil-is-worth-the-risk?source=feed#comment-256636 256636
Besides, if they really need something not homegrown, they'll buy the parts and know-how they need but avoid production-sharing agreements and instead keep the large profits to themselves. Just like any independent US producer would do.]]> Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:51:30 -0400
Besides, if they really need something not homegrown, they'll buy the parts and know-how they need but avoid production-sharing agreements and instead keep the large profits to themselves. Just like any independent US producer would do.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88511-los-angeles-declares-war-on-colonel-sanders-and-your-portfolio?source=feed#comment-221082 221082
>> Where did he ever insult the citizens of LA?

Implicitly. Not explicitly. Which is no worse than what LA did. Let's review.

According to Dylan, LA thinks some of its constituents make poor eating decisions. Well, also according to Dylan, we must help parents educate children or educate themselves about making better dining choices. So, you see, Dylan and LA are in agreement about one of the problem's root causes: some people don't know better.

Now, nowhere does LA come out and call their people "stupid", "dense", etc. But, you READ THESE INSULTS INTO IT. Over what? Over the same observation Dylan made? Be careful: The fact that you suggest different policy prescriptions doesn't make a difference regarding the "insults". The fact is: you, too, Dylan, think some people need "help" making better decisions. LA hasn't been any more "insulting" to its citizens than you. If you want to read insults into it, then do the same with your piece.

And then there's Dylan's reference to retarded people, the "people riding the little yellow buses". (Don't anticipate that I misread Dylan's explicit statement, because I didn't.) Yes, I read your statement "everyone you, Dylan, knows" knows junk food is junk food. Explicitly, you're saying "there isn't anyone who doesn't know just how bad junk food is" and, therefore, "I, Dylan, am not calling anyone retarded". But, as I said, if one of YOUR solutions is "education", then one of the problems is "lack of information". By definition, that means some people really DON'T know junk food is that bad for them. That contradicts your earlier statement. You DO believe some people lack information to make better decisions. Worse, LA never compared these people to retards. But, YOU DO. Not explicitly. But, this seems implicit to me.

I'm sure you didn't (and maybe still don't) see it that way, or else you wouldn't have written the piece exactly this way. I understand.


>> What he is saying is that citizens ARE smart enough to make their own decisions - especially when given proper financial incentives

If they're "smart enough", then why do they need "financial incentives"? Don't you see the implicit contradiction here?

>> For starters your suggestion that he replace "instead of" with "addition to" completely ignores

Not "completely". Yes, my one point doesn't address his whole sermon. But, it should provide cause for you to calm down.

Dylan kept repeating "instead of, instead of, instead of". Some of his outrage comes from his *apparent* interpretation of LA's decision as "the only thing LA is going to do to combat the problem is this stupid law" (my paraphrasing). But, restricting fast food outlets isn't the only thing LA wants to do to help its citizens eat better.

"Instead of" implies exclusive alternatives. If that wasn't the message intended, then perhaps Dylan's article should be edited to improve/refine his message. (Come to think of it, since you have his login, maybe that was part of your job? Would that explain why your response is hostile and even personal?)

>> the basic premise of the article which is to get government out of the lives of citizens.

If you want to get "government out of the lives of citizens", then why are you recommending "financial incentives" to get people to eat the food you want them to eat? I don't live in LA. But, to use an analogy that affects me greatly, is not the bailout of Fannie & Freddie "getting into my life", even though it's "only" a financial action?

>> (i.e. tax breaks for certain kinds of food joints, tax breaks for parents of children deemed to be in good health, etc).

So, restricting permitting to favor certain outcomes *IS* "the nanny state in action" but rigging the tax code to favor these same outcomes isn't?

...

By the way, I heard on the radio yesterday that more and more LA urbanites have picked up GARDENING, so they can feed themselves healthier food. Land is somewhat fungible. So, when LA prevents the opening of new fast food outlets, some plot of land somewhere will become available for more gardening.

LA's mayor has been encouraging this. So, you see, LA is doing more than just restricting the opening of new fast food outlets. I don't follow this story closely. But, I doubt that's the only thing either.

Can/should they do more? Maybe you can help them brainstorm. If not now (because you're presently gainfully employed), then perhaps in the future.

Good luck, Dylan and crew.
]]> Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:08:29 -0400
>> Where did he ever insult the citizens of LA?

Implicitly. Not explicitly. Which is no worse than what LA did. Let's review.

According to Dylan, LA thinks some of its constituents make poor eating decisions. Well, also according to Dylan, we must help parents educate children or educate themselves about making better dining choices. So, you see, Dylan and LA are in agreement about one of the problem's root causes: some people don't know better.

Now, nowhere does LA come out and call their people "stupid", "dense", etc. But, you READ THESE INSULTS INTO IT. Over what? Over the same observation Dylan made? Be careful: The fact that you suggest different policy prescriptions doesn't make a difference regarding the "insults". The fact is: you, too, Dylan, think some people need "help" making better decisions. LA hasn't been any more "insulting" to its citizens than you. If you want to read insults into it, then do the same with your piece.

And then there's Dylan's reference to retarded people, the "people riding the little yellow buses". (Don't anticipate that I misread Dylan's explicit statement, because I didn't.) Yes, I read your statement "everyone you, Dylan, knows" knows junk food is junk food. Explicitly, you're saying "there isn't anyone who doesn't know just how bad junk food is" and, therefore, "I, Dylan, am not calling anyone retarded". But, as I said, if one of YOUR solutions is "education", then one of the problems is "lack of information". By definition, that means some people really DON'T know junk food is that bad for them. That contradicts your earlier statement. You DO believe some people lack information to make better decisions. Worse, LA never compared these people to retards. But, YOU DO. Not explicitly. But, this seems implicit to me.

I'm sure you didn't (and maybe still don't) see it that way, or else you wouldn't have written the piece exactly this way. I understand.


>> What he is saying is that citizens ARE smart enough to make their own decisions - especially when given proper financial incentives

If they're "smart enough", then why do they need "financial incentives"? Don't you see the implicit contradiction here?

>> For starters your suggestion that he replace "instead of" with "addition to" completely ignores

Not "completely". Yes, my one point doesn't address his whole sermon. But, it should provide cause for you to calm down.

Dylan kept repeating "instead of, instead of, instead of". Some of his outrage comes from his *apparent* interpretation of LA's decision as "the only thing LA is going to do to combat the problem is this stupid law" (my paraphrasing). But, restricting fast food outlets isn't the only thing LA wants to do to help its citizens eat better.

"Instead of" implies exclusive alternatives. If that wasn't the message intended, then perhaps Dylan's article should be edited to improve/refine his message. (Come to think of it, since you have his login, maybe that was part of your job? Would that explain why your response is hostile and even personal?)

>> the basic premise of the article which is to get government out of the lives of citizens.

If you want to get "government out of the lives of citizens", then why are you recommending "financial incentives" to get people to eat the food you want them to eat? I don't live in LA. But, to use an analogy that affects me greatly, is not the bailout of Fannie & Freddie "getting into my life", even though it's "only" a financial action?

>> (i.e. tax breaks for certain kinds of food joints, tax breaks for parents of children deemed to be in good health, etc).

So, restricting permitting to favor certain outcomes *IS* "the nanny state in action" but rigging the tax code to favor these same outcomes isn't?

...

By the way, I heard on the radio yesterday that more and more LA urbanites have picked up GARDENING, so they can feed themselves healthier food. Land is somewhat fungible. So, when LA prevents the opening of new fast food outlets, some plot of land somewhere will become available for more gardening.

LA's mayor has been encouraging this. So, you see, LA is doing more than just restricting the opening of new fast food outlets. I don't follow this story closely. But, I doubt that's the only thing either.

Can/should they do more? Maybe you can help them brainstorm. If not now (because you're presently gainfully employed), then perhaps in the future.

Good luck, Dylan and crew.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88511-los-angeles-declares-war-on-colonel-sanders-and-your-portfolio?source=feed#comment-220530 220530 >> Instead of
>> Instead of

No, it's not "instead of". It's "in addition to". With this obvious distinction in mind, maybe you be less outraged.

>> Instead of looking at parenting or education or home life

"Looking at..." is not a solution. What's your alternative? Be specific.

Should they ban watching more than 1 hour of TV or video games a day? Even if it weren't a preposterous idea, how would you police that? Should they spend tax dollars on an anti-junk food campaign?

What can a local government do? One thing they can do is make the junk food less accessible. It doesn't have to be the only way to combat the problem of obesity. But, it's the kind of decision a local government has some control over.

>> Instead of lowering taxes for people so that they can afford to eat better foods, they thought it wiser to prevent any more Carl's Junior (SYM: CKE) or Burger King (BKC) restaurants from appearing.

If certain restaurants serve junk, why should the majority of educated people not prevent them from opening and hurting the health of their "uneducated" patrons? *

* It's hypocritical of you to on the one hand excoriate LA for recognizing many of its citizens make poor decisions when it comes to the food they eat while on the other hand mentioning (among the vague solutions you offer) "education" as the answer. Are there people out there who make bad eating decisions? There must be. Or else you wouldn't be recommending we "educate" them.

So, for daring to recognize that some diners don't know better, do you intend to rip yourself a new one?

>> Instead of creating incentives for businesses to come to Los Angeles to ...

Again, it's not "instead of". You're viewing these as "exclusive choices" when they're not.

...

Lastly, is this the kind of analysis and reasoning you use to evaluate investments? This sounds more like straight political argument. It's an issue worth debating. But, it seems out of place for "Seeking Alpha".]]> Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:22:40 -0400 >> Instead of
>> Instead of

No, it's not "instead of". It's "in addition to". With this obvious distinction in mind, maybe you be less outraged.

>> Instead of looking at parenting or education or home life

"Looking at..." is not a solution. What's your alternative? Be specific.

Should they ban watching more than 1 hour of TV or video games a day? Even if it weren't a preposterous idea, how would you police that? Should they spend tax dollars on an anti-junk food campaign?

What can a local government do? One thing they can do is make the junk food less accessible. It doesn't have to be the only way to combat the problem of obesity. But, it's the kind of decision a local government has some control over.

>> Instead of lowering taxes for people so that they can afford to eat better foods, they thought it wiser to prevent any more Carl's Junior (SYM: CKE) or Burger King (BKC) restaurants from appearing.

If certain restaurants serve junk, why should the majority of educated people not prevent them from opening and hurting the health of their "uneducated" patrons? *

* It's hypocritical of you to on the one hand excoriate LA for recognizing many of its citizens make poor decisions when it comes to the food they eat while on the other hand mentioning (among the vague solutions you offer) "education" as the answer. Are there people out there who make bad eating decisions? There must be. Or else you wouldn't be recommending we "educate" them.

So, for daring to recognize that some diners don't know better, do you intend to rip yourself a new one?

>> Instead of creating incentives for businesses to come to Los Angeles to ...

Again, it's not "instead of". You're viewing these as "exclusive choices" when they're not.

...

Lastly, is this the kind of analysis and reasoning you use to evaluate investments? This sounds more like straight political argument. It's an issue worth debating. But, it seems out of place for "Seeking Alpha".]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/84838-oil-gold-arbitrage-opportunity?source=feed#comment-205708 205708 >> 2012 will be "election season"....

Ugh. Okay, I'll bite.

The data might change. But, at the time I followed your link, May 2011 and Aug 2011 showed $70 *bids* on oil, too, while other months in the same year showed prices around $130. May 2011 isn't an election season. More importantly, there was NO volume at those prices.

Please help me adjust my tin foil hat. I'm not seeing what you're seeing.]]> Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:53:53 -0400 >> 2012 will be "election season"....

Ugh. Okay, I'll bite.

The data might change. But, at the time I followed your link, May 2011 and Aug 2011 showed $70 *bids* on oil, too, while other months in the same year showed prices around $130. May 2011 isn't an election season. More importantly, there was NO volume at those prices.

Please help me adjust my tin foil hat. I'm not seeing what you're seeing.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/84929-spotting-banks-in-danger?source=feed#comment-205706 205706
Why quote "# of banks" as though that's significant? After nearly 20 years of bank consolidations, "# of banks" is a misleading comparison.

I read elsewhere that Texas banks in the 80's were often independent from one county to the next. Many small banks went under. Rather than quote "# of banks", maybe it's better to quote total cap in absolute terms or perhaps as a % of GDP.]]> Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:28:49 -0400
Why quote "# of banks" as though that's significant? After nearly 20 years of bank consolidations, "# of banks" is a misleading comparison.

I read elsewhere that Texas banks in the 80's were often independent from one county to the next. Many small banks went under. Rather than quote "# of banks", maybe it's better to quote total cap in absolute terms or perhaps as a % of GDP.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/84672-putting-1t-subprime-mortgage-losses-in-perspective?source=feed#comment-203678 203678
That's great, because I remember this "beauty" from Steve Forbes:
www.wealthdaily.com/ar...

I held my COP shares long after *that* prediction. But, thanks anyway for the tip, Steve!]]> Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:49:21 -0400
That's great, because I remember this "beauty" from Steve Forbes:
www.wealthdaily.com/ar...

I held my COP shares long after *that* prediction. But, thanks anyway for the tip, Steve!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81397-the-great-oil-deception-part-two?source=feed#comment-188041 188041
>> read democrats] have repeatably voted to block this relatively inexpensive oil development while voting to permit extremely expensive drilling hundreds of miles offshore louisiana in 8000 feet of water. so if you want cheaper oil vote out your economic enemies.

I'm *completely* in favor of drilling off the coasts. That being said, look in the mirror, Xander.

First, look at 2000-2006: the Republicans did NOTHING despite absolute rule. THAT was the time to act! It takes YEARS to explore and then build the infrastructure to handle it. (We don't even have enough rigs available to even start, because the existing rigs are pretty fully booked.) That was the time to do it. But, the Republicans failed to act.

Second, the Republicans blocked every Democratic effort to raise EPA standards for TWENTY YEARS. How much more supply would we have right now if mileage standards were double? (Remember Ben Franklin's "a penny saved is a penny earned"?)

So, go look in the mirror, Xander. If there's an objective bone in your body, you should be blaming yourself and your fellow Republicans who dared not question and complain ENOUGH about what your leaders both did and did not do. (AFTER you do that, go ahead and blame others. But, start with yourself.)
]]> Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:15:10 -0400
>> read democrats] have repeatably voted to block this relatively inexpensive oil development while voting to permit extremely expensive drilling hundreds of miles offshore louisiana in 8000 feet of water. so if you want cheaper oil vote out your economic enemies.

I'm *completely* in favor of drilling off the coasts. That being said, look in the mirror, Xander.

First, look at 2000-2006: the Republicans did NOTHING despite absolute rule. THAT was the time to act! It takes YEARS to explore and then build the infrastructure to handle it. (We don't even have enough rigs available to even start, because the existing rigs are pretty fully booked.) That was the time to do it. But, the Republicans failed to act.

Second, the Republicans blocked every Democratic effort to raise EPA standards for TWENTY YEARS. How much more supply would we have right now if mileage standards were double? (Remember Ben Franklin's "a penny saved is a penny earned"?)

So, go look in the mirror, Xander. If there's an objective bone in your body, you should be blaming yourself and your fellow Republicans who dared not question and complain ENOUGH about what your leaders both did and did not do. (AFTER you do that, go ahead and blame others. But, start with yourself.)
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81711-what-china-s-stock-market-implosion-means-for-oil?source=feed#comment-187717 187717
Recent implosions in structured finance should be a lesson to be skeptical about accounting and what it does or doesn't hide.

For instance, do those calculations back out the fictitious contributions from the USA's FIRE sector? If most US revenue (and profits) come from manufacturing that's been outsourced to China, how "efficient" are we really?

Sorry, but each time I read figures like these, I hear "we're #1" and visualize foam fingers on the people doing the calculations.]]> Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:30:12 -0400
Recent implosions in structured finance should be a lesson to be skeptical about accounting and what it does or doesn't hide.

For instance, do those calculations back out the fictitious contributions from the USA's FIRE sector? If most US revenue (and profits) come from manufacturing that's been outsourced to China, how "efficient" are we really?

Sorry, but each time I read figures like these, I hear "we're #1" and visualize foam fingers on the people doing the calculations.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81289-global-regulation-trend-favors-powershares-global-clean-energy?source=feed#comment-186050 186050
Just like the ozone hole, second-hand smoke, tobacco smoke, and asbestos were hoaxes. Because the "X-is-junk-science" paid-for-by-industry crowd (and their unpaid followers) said so.

Not.

It's the same in every generation. There are:
(a) those who see the problem and push for solutions (some poor, some good)
(b) those who oppose doing anything, because it hurts their financial interest, and
(c) those who oppose the (a) group because the (b) group convinced them that the (a) group "has an agenda" beyond the agenda on the table. It's the "if we don't continue X, the bad guys win" argument.]]> Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:18:29 -0400
Just like the ozone hole, second-hand smoke, tobacco smoke, and asbestos were hoaxes. Because the "X-is-junk-science" paid-for-by-industry crowd (and their unpaid followers) said so.

Not.

It's the same in every generation. There are:
(a) those who see the problem and push for solutions (some poor, some good)
(b) those who oppose doing anything, because it hurts their financial interest, and
(c) those who oppose the (a) group because the (b) group convinced them that the (a) group "has an agenda" beyond the agenda on the table. It's the "if we don't continue X, the bad guys win" argument.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81074-the-great-oil-deception?source=feed#comment-186045 186045
Thanks for the article and for bothering to reply to so many readers.

I'm not sure you've convinced me to exit my energy positions. But, you've expressed something I've been thinking about for a little while and given me reason to think of it again/more.

Everyone and his grandmother has written about the fundamentals driving oil prices the past few years. It's nice to read a contrarian piece once in a while. ]]> Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:06:33 -0400
Thanks for the article and for bothering to reply to so many readers.

I'm not sure you've convinced me to exit my energy positions. But, you've expressed something I've been thinking about for a little while and given me reason to think of it again/more.

Everyone and his grandmother has written about the fundamentals driving oil prices the past few years. It's nice to read a contrarian piece once in a while. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81397-the-great-oil-deception-part-two?source=feed#comment-186039 186039
Republicans had a supermajority back then. What happened? And what happened in the 2000-2006 timeframe when anything could've been done?]]> Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:51:57 -0400
Republicans had a supermajority back then. What happened? And what happened in the 2000-2006 timeframe when anything could've been done?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81397-the-great-oil-deception-part-two?source=feed#comment-186038 186038
Republicans had a supermajority back then. What happened? And what happened in the 2000-2006 timeframe when anything could've been done?]]> Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:51:40 -0400
Republicans had a supermajority back then. What happened? And what happened in the 2000-2006 timeframe when anything could've been done?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81397-the-great-oil-deception-part-two?source=feed#comment-186036 186036
There you go again.... You paranoid nuts believe there is always an "agenda" behind preserving enough of the planet so that future generations may continue to enjoy it.

The "agenda" is simple and right in front of your face: create a sustainable economy. That's it! That's the agenda. Take off the tinfoil hat and start looking at the facts and arguments anew.

Who will profit from this? Anyone can. Companies with green tech are in the market. You can go long or short. If you had a usable skill, you could work for them.
]]> Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:48:35 -0400
There you go again.... You paranoid nuts believe there is always an "agenda" behind preserving enough of the planet so that future generations may continue to enjoy it.

The "agenda" is simple and right in front of your face: create a sustainable economy. That's it! That's the agenda. Take off the tinfoil hat and start looking at the facts and arguments anew.

Who will profit from this? Anyone can. Companies with green tech are in the market. You can go long or short. If you had a usable skill, you could work for them.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81397-the-great-oil-deception-part-two?source=feed#comment-186019 186019
Personally, I would like to drill it...as well as migrate to solar.

I don't think the enviro impact is nearly as bad as burning the equivalent in coal -- which generates more CO2. Also, piping oil around isn't nearly as dangerous as shipping it. So, I encourage environmentalists/ecol... to support drilling in ANWR and building a pipeline.]]> Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:18:47 -0400
Personally, I would like to drill it...as well as migrate to solar.

I don't think the enviro impact is nearly as bad as burning the equivalent in coal -- which generates more CO2. Also, piping oil around isn't nearly as dangerous as shipping it. So, I encourage environmentalists/ecol... to support drilling in ANWR and building a pipeline.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/79701-windfall-profits-for-big-food-where-s-the-outrage?source=feed#comment-178664 178664
The political divide does not stem from motivations. With the exception of 1% outliers, everybody's motivations (at least in the constituency) are pretty good. The differences in policy recommendations stems from different perceptions. Or, in the case of government, special interests lobby them for handouts. Members of both parties sign up for this, too often for *anyone's* tastes.

Let's not presume the worst of each other over the failings of some of our "leaders". Let's not be assh*les to each other.

More germane to the post, this myopia over "Big Food" and -- my personal favorite -- "Big Water" profit margins has nothing to do with "Dem" or "Rep". For example, I'm a liberal and I think oil company margins are just fine. Indeed, I don't like the constant tinkering with the tax codes, because a shifting regulatory/tax framework makes it more difficult to raise capital to invest.]]> Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:17:13 -0400
The political divide does not stem from motivations. With the exception of 1% outliers, everybody's motivations (at least in the constituency) are pretty good. The differences in policy recommendations stems from different perceptions. Or, in the case of government, special interests lobby them for handouts. Members of both parties sign up for this, too often for *anyone's* tastes.

Let's not presume the worst of each other over the failings of some of our "leaders". Let's not be assh*les to each other.

More germane to the post, this myopia over "Big Food" and -- my personal favorite -- "Big Water" profit margins has nothing to do with "Dem" or "Rep". For example, I'm a liberal and I think oil company margins are just fine. Indeed, I don't like the constant tinkering with the tax codes, because a shifting regulatory/tax framework makes it more difficult to raise capital to invest.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/68016-200-oil-who-s-going-to-pay-for-it?source=feed#comment-125684 125684
Please answer the following questions:
- How many barrels are in ANWR?
- Since oil is fungible and the market is global, how many barrels does the world use a year?

Mind you, I'm entirely in favor of drilling * off the coasts of California and North Carolina and everywhere else (provided we tax hydrocarbon use to encourage transition to alternative energy). But, ANWR is a drop in the bucket for our energy needs. 9 billion people on the planet by 2050 need long-term solutions. Those people are depending on the choices you and I make.

Also, think of ANWR and our coasts as our "super" SPR. A foreigner once said to me "America is using all the world's resources and saving its own for itself; it's as clear as the nose on my face". It's clear to me, too. The day will come when your children will thank you for not drilling in ANWR.

(* Does that mean I'm not an environmentalist? No. I want us to eliminate coal and -- like it or not -- we're going to need more oil and gas short-term to cover the deficit. ALSO, "spills" from oil rigs and pipelines are trivial. Big spills come from shipping it in tankers.)]]> Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:16:57 -0400
Please answer the following questions:
- How many barrels are in ANWR?
- Since oil is fungible and the market is global, how many barrels does the world use a year?

Mind you, I'm entirely in favor of drilling * off the coasts of California and North Carolina and everywhere else (provided we tax hydrocarbon use to encourage transition to alternative energy). But, ANWR is a drop in the bucket for our energy needs. 9 billion people on the planet by 2050 need long-term solutions. Those people are depending on the choices you and I make.

Also, think of ANWR and our coasts as our "super" SPR. A foreigner once said to me "America is using all the world's resources and saving its own for itself; it's as clear as the nose on my face". It's clear to me, too. The day will come when your children will thank you for not drilling in ANWR.

(* Does that mean I'm not an environmentalist? No. I want us to eliminate coal and -- like it or not -- we're going to need more oil and gas short-term to cover the deficit. ALSO, "spills" from oil rigs and pipelines are trivial. Big spills come from shipping it in tankers.)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/68016-200-oil-who-s-going-to-pay-for-it?source=feed#comment-125435 125435
Assuming I pay a 50% tax on the inflated gains, then my real return is wiped out! (50% tax on $1B fake gains = $500M.) I only managed to keep my "real wealth" intact, like the Red Queen Race (hat tip to Mish).

Of course, if I'm a successful supply-sider and can talk the public to lower my tax rate, I can still come out ahead. (They, of course, will not.)]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:27:10 -0400
Assuming I pay a 50% tax on the inflated gains, then my real return is wiped out! (50% tax on $1B fake gains = $500M.) I only managed to keep my "real wealth" intact, like the Red Queen Race (hat tip to Mish).

Of course, if I'm a successful supply-sider and can talk the public to lower my tax rate, I can still come out ahead. (They, of course, will not.)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/68016-200-oil-who-s-going-to-pay-for-it?source=feed#comment-125433 125433
You might be correct. But, here are a couple of counterarguments:

>> but let’s keep in mind that the rest of the world has to fork over $3Bn a day as well in order to support $200 a barrel oil

Measured in dollars. What's the cost to the rest of the world measured in their OWN currencies?

>> This is the dream of starry-eyed energy traders who are too bad at math to realize that if they do successfully drive oil prices up to $200 a barrel and double their money, that the money they have will only be worth 1/4 of what it was when they started.

Not if they're using borrowed money (e.g., from the Fed). If I:
- start with $0,
- borrow $1B,
- ride it up to $2B, and
- pay back my $1B principal (with 10% interest),
then:
- my nominal profit is $1B

Let's say the dollar loses 50% during that time. In real terms, I still net $500M, because:
- My real gross is $1B.
- My real principal repayment is $500M.

Me and the rest of the amateurs probably won't play it right. Nor will many pros. But, like they say about Lotto: "you gotta be in it to win it" and "somebody's gotta win".

]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:21:51 -0400
You might be correct. But, here are a couple of counterarguments:

>> but let’s keep in mind that the rest of the world has to fork over $3Bn a day as well in order to support $200 a barrel oil

Measured in dollars. What's the cost to the rest of the world measured in their OWN currencies?

>> This is the dream of starry-eyed energy traders who are too bad at math to realize that if they do successfully drive oil prices up to $200 a barrel and double their money, that the money they have will only be worth 1/4 of what it was when they started.

Not if they're using borrowed money (e.g., from the Fed). If I:
- start with $0,
- borrow $1B,
- ride it up to $2B, and
- pay back my $1B principal (with 10% interest),
then:
- my nominal profit is $1B

Let's say the dollar loses 50% during that time. In real terms, I still net $500M, because:
- My real gross is $1B.
- My real principal repayment is $500M.

Me and the rest of the amateurs probably won't play it right. Nor will many pros. But, like they say about Lotto: "you gotta be in it to win it" and "somebody's gotta win".

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/68016-200-oil-who-s-going-to-pay-for-it?source=feed#comment-125431 125431
I still wonder: WHO are the remaining "19%" and why can't we ship them to Iran, where they'll fit in better??]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:10:51 -0400
I still wonder: WHO are the remaining "19%" and why can't we ship them to Iran, where they'll fit in better??]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/62889-china-volatility-and-the-winter-storm?source=feed#comment-124500 124500 Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:20:44 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/62889-china-volatility-and-the-winter-storm?source=feed#comment-124499 124499 ]]> Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:20:16 -0400 ]]>