Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,774,074 times
Reputation: 7185
Advertisements
Something occurred to me as I watched a clip of Speaker Pelosi on Larry King arguing that natural gas was an alternative to fossil fuels. I realized that this woman who has enormous power and actually writes laws that govern American business has no idea what she's talking about. That scares me.
Geithner has no business running the US Treasury. He represents what created the problem and was selected due to his adherence to Obama's agenda (isn't this a serious case of letting the fox into the henhouse?). He was recently on record saying some very negative things about energy companies, ExxonMobil in particular (I assume because Exxon is still making money). If he is truly the guru Obama thinks he is, why doesn't he understand that Exxon will make money in any environment? It's an economy of scale, similar to Walmart. Exxon is so huge and so diversified that it is difficult to imagine a scenario that renders it insolvent. They spend enormous amounts of money and they make enormous amounts of money, but Exxon's yearly profit margin is always about 7 or 8 percent (unless oil prices are outrageously inflated).
Is anyone else really terrified? Unless you are a minimum wager or unemployed, you should be.
In general, lawmakers and other officials are like anyone else...they have actual knowledge and acumen only in the specific areas that interest them and in which they have had training. What is interesting however is how quickly many of them are able to absorb knowledge from a staffer who has such specific interest and training behind him, thereby becoming a de facto instant expert on housing for a few days this week and on immigration for a few days next week. That's something to consider. Also that when speaking to the public, many try to talk at a level that the public is actually able to understand. Even though they may be able to carry on at any goiven moment over the intricacies of how Fannie Mae's books are managed or why cotton subsidies are such a thorny international issue, the audience they are addressing in simply not able to fathom those intricacies, so it makes no sense to go into them.
Many of them don't write their own speeches. Here's a thought: they ought to be required to take Econ 101, Finance, Accounting and History before being sworn in. Why are lawyers running the economy anyway? No wonder its in the johnny crapper.
Many of them don't write their own speeches. Here's a thought: they ought to be required to take Econ 101, Finance, Accounting and History before being sworn in. Why are lawyers running the economy anyway? No wonder its in the johnny crapper.
If the took Econ 101, which usually is macroeconmics, they would believe that government spending is the main method for ending a deflationary cycle, if they took history, they would know why it works, if they took finance they would have gotten us in the mess that we are currently in.
It's funny that in most any job in our economy we ask of candidates to provide their educational background to show they are skilled in the things they will be dealing with. With politicians we seldom look. Instead it falls to people that are connected to others that know how the game is played and has the financial resources to spend $5 million for a job that only pays$200k.... doesn't anyone else wonder why they do that? I have to think they see real dollars in excess of what they spend otherwise they wouldn't do it... excluding the Ross Perots.
If the took Econ 101, which usually is macroeconmics, they would believe that government spending is the main method for ending a deflationary cycle, if they took history, they would know why it works, if they took finance they would have gotten us in the mess that we are currently in.
The vast majority of politicians are legislators of one fashion or the other, and while not all legislators are lawyers, I would think that if one's primary job is to write laws, knowing something about the law might come in handy.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,774,074 times
Reputation: 7185
Something else occurred to me listening to Obama saying that his legislation would "DOUBLE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PRODUCTION". Holy cow, that sounds great! What a great guy, he's going to double energy production from solar, wind, hydro, etc. etc. This is exactly what our country needs, right?
Does anyone know what the petroleum equivalent of daily domestic alternative energy production is?
It's about 76,000 barrels of oil equivalent. Considering that our total energy consumption (expressed in barrells of oil equivalent) is in the hundreds of millions, doubling 76,000 is literally negligible. To give you some idea, lets say that we double alternative energy production to 152,000 BOE. If we think of barrells of oil equivalent in seconds, that would be about 1 3/4 days. Our total domestic energy usage expressed in the same way would be almost 8 years.
Doubling alternative energy doesn't do squat, but it sure sounds great...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
