an interesting article about our economy and the war

[hi5]

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

The article explains how developing countries are diversifying thier currency reserves away from the dollar because of the strength of the euro and the increasing strength in the Euro's association with the war and the nations included in bush's axis of evil.

"Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example). You'd have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there'd surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis scenario."

Maybe a little far-fetched. We'll see said the blind man.

[Inquartata]

Hmm. Britain somehow survived the fall of the pound from primacy among world currencies. Possibly the US will do the same?

The two most interesting things about this article are found near its beginning and at its end:

The first is this phrase, in the "Summary":

"The author advocates"

At least he's up front about aving an agenda to forward, but it throws a dubious light on the objectivity of his research and conclusions.

The second is here:



"About the author:

William Clark is currently working as a healthcare manager at a well-known east coast university. He is not an economist"

May the gods save us from journalists and MBAs with pretensions to understanding macroeconomic affairs.

I also note that his references seem to contain not a single book on economic theory or practice, only a lot of articles, mostly from the popular press and the internet. The few books seem to be political screeds of the strident leftist persuasion. He doesn't seem overly keen to remedy his admitted lack of economic credentials with reading....

[edew]

Rather than dismissing the article based on its lineage, perhaps you care to argue for or against the wisdom (or lack of) in the content of the article?

It would be nice to actually discuss the merits of the article, rather than pooh-pooh or rave about the author or the author's history.

[Catal]

Originally posted by 135711
ive been arguing for mass transit/trains/busses for ages, to reduce our oil dependency, others have raised other energy issues such as solar energy, the small windmill energy things, some have developed all kinds of energy producing devices, and energy saving cars like electric cars, and electric heat, so on and so forth...

Patents for the hydrogen fuel cell engine already exist, and they work just fine. However, a number of the patents on the most important technologies are owned, in full, by oil companies (Shell, Chevron.) They refuse to share that technology, and so latecomers must invent new technologies to compensate. Many of these patents were given decades ago. Had the technology been allowed to progress then, we'd already have what experts say will take us decades to achieve now.

[pkt]

135711,

Not trying to be overly correcting or malicious:
It's simply the 'Euro' not 'Eurodollar'. Again your US-centricity is betraying itself.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/euro_en.htm

--)----------

Catal, 135711,

In any discussion about alternatives to any current systems one has to take into considerations the infrastructures.

i.e. (here's some Latin for you, 135711 )
what fuel will the public transit run on?
is there enough infrastructure - i.e. hydorgen stations where users can refuel - to supply the hydrogen fuel for the hydrogen fuel cells?
where will the hydrogen come from? The easiest way is electrolysis.
But where is the power coming from for the electrolysis?
Hydro power?
More natural-gas-fired generating plants? Hence the increase in the price of natural gas as a result of more N-G- fired generating plants in S. Cal..
Wind farms? Perhaps. But the naturalists will object because they kill birds...
see http://www.windpower.dk/news/
Solar panels?

ad nauseum.

There a whole hosts of Q & As.

In Burnaby, a suburb of Vancouver where I live, is the HQ of Ballard Power, one of the leaders in the Hydorgen fuel cell game.
The major hangup is, as I pointed out, how to get the fuel-cel powered vehicles refueled.

Wind farms are good. They are one of the least offensive forms of renewable powers aside from the visual polution factor. But there are ways to overcome that too.
http://www.windpower.dk/tour/env/index.htm

IMHO, one of the major forte and faults in the US mentality is the can-do attitude. By that I'm pointing my finger (with my pointing finger) to the US Corp of Engineers who think that human's ingenuity can overcome anything Mother Nature has, only to find that in the long run Mother Nature finds ways to assert her superiority.

e.g.? The building of homes in flood plains. The draining of marshes. The movement of water from the Hoover Dam to S. Cal. (the building of the 3-gorges dams in China). These are just a few follies that are collapsing right in front of our eyes.

PK

[Catal]

Q: what fuel will the public transit run on?

Answer: Hydrogen/Sodium borohydride

http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/index...t2002/c2_e.htm


Q: is there enough infrastructure - i.e. hydorgen stations where users can refuel...

Answer: There will be. The question of supply meeting demand is always asked, and the answer is always the same.


Q: where will the hydrogen come from?

Answer: Hydrogen is also made from methane, landfill waste, livestock waste, human waste, etc... In short, it will come from your ***. Ah, ha ha haaaaa!


Q: But where is the power coming from for the electrolysis? Hydro power?

Answer: Sure, why not? It's clean, and it's safe.


Q: Wind farms? Perhaps. But the naturalists will object because they kill birds...

Answer: Irrelevent. It won't matter where it comes from when oil and coal run out. Better to do now, than procrastinate and suffer. The lower long term benefits justify the short term expenses.


>>(the building of the 3-gorges dams in China). These are just a >>few follies that are collapsing right in front of our eyes.

Actually, the 3-gorges dam started as an American project, but the Chinese decided to use Russian dam building methods instead... So nyah!

[edew]

Oil and coal will never run out. It is, actually, a renewable source.

The only non-renewable source of energy (available to humans) are:

solar
nuclear (of the fission type)*
geothermal

All other sources of energy are really derivatives of solar. Wind, hydro, oil and coal and natural gas are all by-products of solar energy.

That we have a sun for the foreseeable future (say, next 10 million years, conservatively) means that if we need oil, we can make it.

What will eventually die out is the need to use oil and coal. But they will never run out. Indeed, despite the recent rise at the gas pumps, oil prices have been and are continuously dropping. There are now more oil and more oil reserves now than ever before.

*actually, breeder-reactors make nuclear somewhat renewable, as one harvests the plutonium from the reaction. But at the moment, it's pretty much not a sound energy source policy, given the highly volatile (in the geo-political sense) nature of that material.

[civiltech]

Yeah,

but the French stopped building breeder reactors. They produced so much fuel! They couldn't just keep building more reactors...which kept producing more fuel...so you had to build more reactors! etc.!

Is there really more oil? Does it not take several thousand (milllion) years to become oil as we require it? I wouldn't mind knowing more about your above mentioned statements. It has me curious.

[Catal]

Oil and coal will never run out. It is, actually, a renewable source.

Every oil company has published estimated dates for when all the oil and coal on the planet will run out. So, not only does every liberal, green peace scientist disagree with you, but every conservative, oil funded scientist does as well. And, since they have verifiable research and evidence to back up their analysis, I would urge you to produce your own if you expect anyone to take you seriously.

The only non-renewable source of energy (available to humans) are: solar, nuclear (of the fission type)*, geothermal.

The sun is 330,000 times larger than the Earth, and is expected to die in 7billion years. Even if the Earth were completely filled with oil, instead of molten rock, there is no way the amout of oil on the planet would outlast the sun. Again, I doubt there is a single, sane scientist who would agree with your analysis of the oil situation.

All other sources of energy are really derivatives of solar. Wind, hydro, oil and coal and natural gas are all by-products of solar energy.

Now that I am certain you're either trolling, or certifiably insane, I am answering only to prevent you from polluting the waters of the human consciousness. Oil and coal come from living matter that has died, and been broken down into its core elements. The process takes millions of years to occur, thus, we will use these resources before they can be renewed. Here's is a children's page that explains this process in more detail... I hopes it's not too complicated: http://kids.rrc.state.tx.us/school/c.../coalfrom.html

That we have a sun for the foreseeable future (say, next 10 million years, conservatively) means that if we need oil, we can make it.

10 million years conservatively? The sun? You're kidding right? I mean, this has gotta be a joke; you've got to be pretending to be this daft...

Indeed, despite the recent rise at the gas pumps, oil prices have been and are continuously dropping.

Despite the rise... prices are dropping... Uh, huh... Yes, prices are so much lower now than when they cost 25cents decades ago.

Anyway, I truly hope you were joking with this because if you are as uninformed as your response makes you look, then perhaps the world is right about all Americans being fat, lazy and stupid. And, as an American, you would make me sick.

[Catal]

Originally posted by civiltech
I wouldn't mind knowing more about your above mentioned statements. It has me curious.

Don't take him seriously... Or, if you do- I'm selling the Brooklyn Bridge. I'll sell it to you for $50...

[civiltech]

$50.00 ??!!!!

Man, you have a deal!!

Where do I send my certified cheque, payable to cash?!

[Philistine]

Originally posted by Catal
{snip}
The sun is 330,000 times larger than the Earth, and is expected to die in 7billion years. Even if the Earth were completely filled with oil, instead of molten rock, there is no way the amout of oil on the planet would outlast the sun. Again, I doubt there is a single, sane scientist who would agree with your analysis of the oil situation.

Well, yes. But even though very large, the sun (as well as geothermal energy) are, by definition--non-renewable. As a practical matter, it doesn't matter, since by human standards, although non-renewable, it is effectively infinite--at least at the current scale of human energy use--which is what I assumed the 10 million year figure was related to.

Now that I am certain you're either trolling, or certifiably insane, I am answering only to prevent you from polluting the waters of the human consciousness. Oil and coal come from living matter that has died, and been broken down into its core elements. The process takes millions of years to occur, thus, we will use these resources before they can be renewed. Here's is a children's page that explains this process in more detail... I hopes it's not too complicated: http://kids.rrc.state.tx.us/school/c.../coalfrom.html

There are new theories that the majority of Earth's hydrocarbons predated organic life, and that oil/natural gas/etc. are formed by the action on the hydrocarbons by chemosythetic bacteria in a subsurface "deep biosphere." See, for example: Wired Article. Not sure I buy it, but it is interesting--and the guy has credentials.

Despite the rise... prices are dropping... Uh, huh... Yes, prices are so much lower now than when they cost 25cents decades ago.

Adjusted for inflation, oil prices have been pretty stable for the last century. From
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm :

The U.S. industry's price has been heavily regulated through production or price controls throughout much of the twentieth century. In the post World War II era oil prices have averaged $19.27 per barrel in 1996 dollars. Through the same period the median price for crude oil was $15.27 in 1996 prices. That means that only fifty percent of the time from 1947 to 1997 have oil prices exceeded $15.26 per barrel. Prices have only exceeded $22.00 per barrel in response to war or conflict in the Middle East.

The long term view is much the same. Since 1869 US crude oil prices adjusted for inflation have averaged $18.63 per barrel. Fifty percent of the time prices were below $14.91.

Anyway, I truly hope you were joking with this because if you are as uninformed as your response makes you look, then perhaps the world is right about all Americans being fat, lazy and stupid. And, as an American, you would make me sick.

That's a bit much, I think...

--Philistine

[Catal]

Well, yes. But even though very large, the sun (as well as geothermal energy) are, by definition--non-renewable. As a practical matter, it doesn't matter, since by human standards, although non-renewable, it is effectively infinite

Edew said that Solar energy is non-renewable, and that "oil and coal will never run out." You're taking my response out of context, and giving validity to Edew's incredible assertions. Also, I never argued that the sun is an infinitely renewable energy source; I argued that oil and coal could not conceivably outlast the sun as an energy source.


There are new theories that the majority of Earth's hydrocarbons predated organic life, and that oil/natural gas/etc. are formed by the action on the hydrocarbons by chemosythetic bacteria in a subsurface "deep biosphere."

Dandy. Yet another theory that disproves anything said by Edew.


Adjusted for inflation, oil prices have been pretty stable for the last century.

Ah, good- evidence. Thank you. Yes, they do appear stable. Again, disproving Edew and this time disproving me.


That's a bit much, I think...

That is subjective.

[edew]

Thanks for the assistance with the rebuttals, monsieur philistine. I will take it from here later this evening when I pull the big book of facts out to show the world why simple back-pond environmentalists have zero clue about the nature of the world.

The 10 million years is of course not an exact (or nearly approximate) figure. But do I need to have one? Need I provide a date and time of the destruction of the sun? Does 10 million or 10 billion (or 10 trillion) years really mean anything?

Some people complain (and rightly so) that Bush's pre-emptive strike against Iraq has no basis because it's not clear that Iraq is intending to do anything in the next year or ten years. So how far ahead should pre-emption take? Analogously, do we really need to worry about what happens after the 10 millionth year from now? Do we have to set up an environmental plan that will work for the next 10 billion years.

I knew that my statements will get some jerk-off idiot's goat. That's fine. It's even more pleasing later this evening when I will have time to spell out the explanations for it all.

[Catal]

why simple back-pond environmentalists have zero clue about the nature of the world.

You are without a clue. Both environmentalists AND oil companies agree that the oil supply will run out. Did you not read that; are you blind as well as insipid? This isn't a liberal versus conservative aguement, it's that both sides completely, scientifically disagree with your notion that oil and coal will never run out. Your reference to only the liberal connotations of the argument demonstrates the narrow minded process of your intellect, and your inablity to see contradiction in your arguments.


The 10 million years is of course not an exact (or nearly approximate) figure. But do I need to have one?

Yes, you do. If you are going to argue about the facts of an issue, it would help if you had any facts at all! Instead, you demonstrate your thorough ignorance of even the most basic facts of our solar system. Further, you use an erroneous estimation to validate a theory that has no basis. Phillistine made a number of fact based responses; use him as a guide. Your current method of speaking without research does nothing but enforce the notion that you are uneducated and have no business engaging in serious debate.


Analogously, do we really need to worry about what happens after the 10 millionth year from now? Do we have to set up an environmental plan that will work for the next 10 billion years.

Irrelevant.


jerk-off idiot's goat.

Oh, you called me a name. Help, help... My feelings... (When will people learn that name calling is utterly useless on the Internet?)


It's even more pleasing later this evening when I will have time to spell out the explanations for it all.

Yes, and don't forget to post all the wonderful evidence showing that oil and coal will never run out.

[pkt]

I love this quotation one of us uses as his tag. Most apropos to describe someone whom one of our PM's aides called a moron...a name that a lot of Democrats use to describe him too.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -- B. Russell

[Here come the protestations.]

The whole stock market is acting in the same manner as Dubya. They are betting on a short war. At least they're putting their money where their mouths are. Whereas we on this forum don't have such encumberances.

One fo the lessons one learns over time about the reasons for the US economy being where it is is because the other countries use the USD as part of their reserves thus boosting the value of the USD.

This days, there's an alternative: the Euro.

Friday, March 21, 2003
1 US Dollar = 0.94189 Euro
1 Euro (EUR) = 1.06170 US Dollar (USD)
1 Euro = 1.57310 Canadian Dollar
1 Canadian Dollar (CAD) = 0.63569 Euro (EUR)
http://www.oanda.com/convert/classic

Remember, it was only a short few months, like in December, ago when the USD was still worth more than the Euro?
For a graph of the history of USD vs Euro you can go to the same site and click on FX analysis, change the componants of the basket and click on "Graph absolute Values".

PK

[thebigriddle]

Well, that is interesting. If you truly understand how the reserve works you can see the logic. Before there were banks you had insurance company to insure property that would be traveling across the seas to market. Now an insurance company has to have a reserve of real property this was gold or silver. Now the rate of a vessel sinking was calculated. You would pay the insurance and at the end of the year the books would be balanced and the pay out paid. But what happens if you don't have anything in reserve? The only way to fix the problem is to increase the number of pay ins and cause a delay with the pay out. The pay out being currency not real money or real wealth which in the constitution is coined gold or silver. When trade an item (real wealth) for another item (real wealth) the transaction is complete. With currency or paper money then you have an incomplete transaction or a delay. And during that transaction someone has a loss and someone has a gain. The gain is taxed which returns part of the production of wealth back to the reserve. If you eat four apples and you only grow two where did the other apples come from? Simple you have to steal them. Currency was designed to be a receipt for real wealth. Does every one know where the dollar sign comes from $ line represents a bar and the s is silver a double bar is gold and c is copper. Dollars are unit quanity such as a pound. You can have a pound of gold or a dollar of gold. The point is that the real wealth in the country is being stolen or your production. Of course not as bad is others, but they are working on it. See when you work you produce and your production is taxed. When you buy a product that is taxed. Most property you own is taxed, ie land, car etc. So you work produce and you don't own your production. What is the difference between a 10% slave and a 100 % slave. You are still a slave. You just get more privleges which are not rights and can be taken away. I think the article does hold some merit. But of course doing the research and find things out takes a lot of work, which for the average American is too lazy to do. I just want my beer, watch TV and have lots of sex. I don't care what they really do. Until you find yourself in gulag. If you want to start learning go to www.infowars.com. That is good place to start and ask a lot of questions. Think.

[thebigriddle]

The real truth is that you can destroy a country without firing a shot. I think the important thing is that someone is thinking presenting new ideas. If think you know it all which I know I don't then that is sad and in the end we will be finished. I think it would be brillant strategy to colapse the market of course I would take it step further. Remember Saddam was CIA asset and the interesting thing is our relationship with Britain. I have nothing against the British people, but the truth of the matter we were a colony of theirs. I hate to say it but the truth is they my hold our independence in the same respect. The Federal reserve is private bank. Which is controlled in part by the British or the bank of England. This is what happens when you borrow money during the civil war. The gold is rule, he who has the gold makes the rules. If you want to conquer the US just control the monetary system and you can do it. Of course you ask why? If I stool your car would you want it back, even if the theft happen 50 years ago. How about just ego. It always good to be the king.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew
Rather than dismissing the article based on its lineage, perhaps you care to argue for or against the wisdom (or lack of) in the content of the article?

The body of the article seems in the main to be a jeremiad cobbled together using selected quotes from disparate sources talking about, in many cases, different things. And then hanging conclusions from the result. One can scarcely find the trees of science in the forest of value judgements and points of view.

It would be nice to actually discuss the merits of the article, rather than pooh-pooh or rave about the author or the author's history.

There are such things as credentials. Would you sit and listen patiently while your pool guy expatiated on his diagnosis and course of treatment for your cancer? Do you expect that the local supermarket checker would be a credible source of investment advice? Would you go to an astrologer to tell you how to fix your car? No. You would expect them to have some degree of expertise in the matter at hand. The most reliable way to ensure that such expertise exists is, at present, credentials of some sort.

Robert Shockley is a great physicist and deserved all of the accolades he received in the field in which he was trained and experienced. The crackpot theories of eugenics which he devised after retirement, OTOH, are much less impressive.

[thebigriddle]

Credentials such as giving one credit in their ablities. If a person has the ability to reason and think and has taken the time to study or do the research I will still listen. I might not agree, but I will listen. I never took a course in law and only had a course in economics in high school. My degree is in physiology, but this degree doesn't really interest me. The key here is learned how to think and to think critically. I don't need to memorize someone elses works to prove how smart I am. Real brillance comes from looking outside of the box. Then of course there is cause and effect. Ultimate how will this effect my life. Well, if a groups of individuals want to enslave you and there ample evidence to prove this, then I think wise to act accordingly. Alot of times when you go through school ie a university or college, you are not there to think, but to memorize so you can do a job in the work force. Unless you get a degree in philosophy and then you might be better off studying in your own so you don't have to learn someone elses dogma. I have talked with lawyers and have battled policians and have won many arguments because I did the research and used logic and reasoning. If the author's argument are backed up by research and based in reason I will listen. I might not agree with every point he has made. You can act according to your own wisdom and free will and hopefully you are right for own sakes.

http://www.constitution.org/shad4816.htm

another interesting article to compliment the first one. I thank the individual for bringing up the article. I guess if you want to bury your head in the sand and hope someone will save you then so be it. After being in the military for ten years I have learned survival and burden of knowledge is on me. I am a free man, not a slave. I think you have been disrespectful and dishonor both to the person who brought up the article as well as the author himself. You can argue against his logic which I have as of yet heard, just on his rank and status. You must be an elitist and perhaps you need a to do some reading about the founding of america. Perhaps you need to put on rucksack and carry a rifle into battle to defend free. Or perhaps you think so highly of yourself and you see yourself as the superior and all of just as the inferior, a master slave mentality. Have a good day.