AlexS

Total Rating:
+7 / 0

173 Comments

    • Wed Jul 23rd 19:40 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Experts Tell Congress: To Consumers, It's a Recession
      It's not at all clear that the squeeze on the middle class is in any sense caused by the more wealthy. Rather you can look at the problems: 1. Energy: Congress still refuses to let the oil companies drill in promising areas of the U.S. thereby restricting supply and predictably raising energy costs, 2. Housing: Congress used Freddie and Fannie to open the gates to the lower-middle class buying housing that was clearly outside the range of their income, ostensibly doing them a favor, with predictably disastrous results, 3. Food: Congress continues with it's dubious program of converting our food to "renewable" energy, all for avoiding more reasonable answers like oil drilling and nuclear energy, 4. Health: Congress works steadily to intensify federalization of health care, with seemingly unlimited borrowed funds going into Medicare and Medicaid, all competing for the same highly regulated medical assets, with a predictable rise in prices.
      View article »
    • Wed Jul 23rd 19:22 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Fannie and Freddie at the Congress Drive-Up Window: One HELOC To Go, Please
      Well said. Clearly the Congress feels free to draw freely on those of us who still have some positive equity. Thanks Barney, Harry, Chris ... old pals.
      View article »
    • Tue Jul 22nd 12:25 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Gore's Renewable Energy Challenge, And How It Would Shift Investing
      I challenge Al Gore to commit to using 100% of the energy used in his house, transportation, and the rest, to come from renewable sources (no gimmicky CO2 indulgences, please) and truly carbon-free sources, by the end of this year. With his contacts and vast financial resources that should be easy to do. Then he can write a book about how wealthy we will have to be to survive in his brave new expensive world.
      View article »
    • Mon Jul 21st 14:15 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Oil Sands: Will the 'Greens' Cause Us to Miss Out?
      Congress has already done this. In the 2007 energy bill as passed there is an item that forbids the military from buying fuel made from crude oil that has a CO2 life cycle footprint greater than that from the production of conventional crudes. Since many northern tier refineries use high-CO2-emission syncrude from Canada, this means the military is out their sources of jet fuel from those refineries. The military is fighting it although unfortunately they haven't used any of their heavy stuff on Congress. No nukes, power plants stopped, no Canadian oil sands - this Congressional leadership is the most pathetic I've ever seen. What will become of our country if we have to stop new energy production, except burning our own food, of course?
      View article »
    • Mon Jul 7th 16:10 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Does Big Oil's Apathy Justify Proposals to Tax Windfall Profits?
      Why do we expect big oil companies to develop our alternative energy? Especially renewable energy, which so far seems to be largely agricultural. Big oil is not an agricultural company. You might as well expect The Gap to develop healthy pizza recipes. Oil companies explore for oil, produce oil, refine it (that's distillation plus some minor alterations in chemistry), and then sell the refined products. That's mostly it. None of that has anything to do with growing crops, building wind turbines, making solar cells. Look to others for that. As for defense involvement, you'll find a lot of defense expenditures in countries (Korea, Germany) that have no relationship to oil. Even the Middle East activity can be seen as related to Israel, the Suez Canal, and the Straits of Hormuz. In other words, trading, irrespective of the particular involvement of big oil companies. But you're right, I suspect. A lot of people are and will be after big oil. Revenge and because they have lots of money, which the politicians want, and they will take it. Revenge and Theft. Certainly two biggies in the conduct of human affairs. So the politicians will get their mob, that's for sure. But I wouldn't be using Seeking Alpha to defend it.
      View article »
    • Fri Jun 27th 11:41 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Bush's New Drilling Proposal: Fixing a Hole
      If we should have a high energy tax we should use that to cut the other taxes, lest the citizenry go under from high taxes, externalized or not. Then we should cut taxes some more, as the polls show that people have little respect either for the current President or the current Congress. Why should they get more money?
      View article »
    • Tue Jun 24th 22:55 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Is the Great Moderation in Danger?
      We don't have price controls on oil any more. Now we just have supply controls. In this case price controls and supply controls both keep us from exploiting new sources of crude. The resulting inflation will swamp the economy.
      View article »
    • Mon Jun 23rd 17:29 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Obama Blows Wind(fall Profits) on Big Oil
      Logan1, nonsense. Are you saying the leading candidate for the Presidency, currently a U.S. Senator, really hasn't thought out what he thinks about energy? We know what he thinks about it. More taxes. No drilling. More taxes. No nuclear. More taxes. He doesn't doubt it. Why should you?

      Fitzman, good article. I also own COP and a fly rod.
      View article »
    • Mon Jun 23rd 16:19 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Even Democrats Should Support Offshore Drilling
      Hoping? Why would you hope that someone goes against everything he's said publically, everything he's voted for? Because that's a rational thing to do and you're convinced that Obama has brains and judgement? Why? On what basis? Certainly not from his position on energy. Not from his voting record. Mr. Kingsdale, it sounds to me like you read too many newspapers. I wonder if we could try on the "it won't matter immediately anyway" arguement to other areas. Here's a thought. We don't need to be concerned about elementary education. I mean, it's not going to matter for another 10-20 years anyway. Just like drilling for oil. Why bother? So what would we do if a party would make that assertion, that elementary education doesn't matter? Would we take that seriously?
      View article »
    • Mon Jun 23rd 13:48 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Bye, Bye Oil Bubble?
      As you say, the bubble will be here until governments, including the U.S. government, starts acting in the right direction. Based on the make-up of Congress and the expected Presidential winner, I would put that at about 2012 or later.
      View article »
    • Sat Jun 14th 11:33 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Why Today Is Different From the Inflationary 1970s
      fjd10595, "more than all combined" - that would be FDR. I didn't particularly agree with Bush's prescription bill. Still, everyone and his uncle seemed to be calling for it at the time (AARP had bags made up that said "Rx in Medicare NOW"), and I have no doubt that there would be some kind of prescription benefit in Medicare by now anyway. And at least Republicans react negatively when their leadership spends too much. Democrats make big spenders their heros, and I would reference FDR on that.
      View article »
    • Fri Jun 13th 23:54 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Indicator Points to Higher Gas Prices - and 3 Potential Power Plays
      bds231, I think the idea is that a sudden price increase for gasoline in Asia will indeed break the crude oil price dramatically. Since there will be essentially no change, however, in the demand for fuel in the U.S., this will enable marketers to maintain prices somewhat and for refiners in turn to raise margins. Interesting idea.
      View article »
    • Fri Jun 13th 18:01 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Why Today Is Different From the Inflationary 1970s
      Ah, but we have yet to experience President Obama.
      View article »
    • Mon Jun 9th 12:52 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      An Oil-Driven Paradigm Shift?
      No single oil well or drilled area is enough to solve our problems. Never has been and never will be. And groups that use nonsensical reasoning (ANWR will only supply 30 seconds usage assuming 44 earth-like planets in the universe etc.) are only doing a disservice to the discussion. If ANWR is part of the solution, the market (including $100 oil) will determine whether it is worth it to drill there. It's nice that some people have enough to leisurely retire on their mountain top, most often on someone else's money. But some people actually have to travel to work and have to support their families.
      View article »
    • Mon Jun 9th 10:32 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      An Oil-Driven Paradigm Shift?
      Maybe so. I talked to somebody here in truck country. They had been shopping for a car and noticed the huge numbers of used trucks on the lot. Some of the dealers have stopped taking them as trade-ins. One thing I don't necessarily agree with above is the idea that we will drill in the controversial areas. Consider that we still have no nuclear waste depository in Nevada and both candidates for President are against ANWR drilling and are for CO2 reductions via higher costs on everybody. This CO2 reduction thing could be a real problem in that oil shale, oil sands, etc. take more energy to produce and therefore more CO2 emissions. Never underestimate the politicians' ability to ignore the interests of the country in favor of their particular groups. Isn't that the lesson of all the misgoverned countries of the world? It will get worse before it gets better.
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»