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.
True. The Dilithium Crystal market should boom in star date 3790.
May the force be with you!
Those parts of the economy will only exist because we tax the alternatives out of the market. If they weren't worthless, wouldn't they be common place without subsidies. Each of these green jobs cost 2.2 other jobs. It's a net job looser.
I do appreciate what you're trying to say about cap-and-trade basically being government intervention into the energy segment of our economy, and that the intervention will ripple throughout the economy. And while I would like verification that each green job costs 2.2 other jobs, I'll accept it for the sake of this discussion. Because those green jobs are investments in renewable energy. And the other jobs are investments in non-renewable energy. So the green jobs are sustainable, while the oil industry jobs are not. Is that not right? So while the green investment in the short run may be more costly, it's an investment that has to be made sometime, just to keep the energy segment of the economy viable. And we can bite the bullet now, or we can wait and let the free market address the issue, but if we do that, it could end up being far more costly. Because the free market isn't a long-term goal thinker, it's a profit maximizer without any interest beyond what, the next two, three decades? And the oil industry has been a terrific profit maximizer. So for the free market, the oil industry continues to be a solid investment as long as the oil continues to flow, even if it means pounding oil out of rocks. But as the oil becomes scarcer and scarcer, individual consumers are going to be less and less able to afford those commodities and their accompanying amenities. If cap and trade is designed to provide incentives to developing oil alternatives now, it may hurt the oil companies today, but smart oil executives would divert some of their resources to research focused on finding alternatives. Wouldn't they? I realize this is all very vague on my part, and I have lots of problems with the cap and trade legislation because frankly it's too big, too sweeping, and too much federal control. But I think that it's been a long time since we had a true free market, and true free markets have their advantages and their disadvantages. Government intervention is meant to minimize the disadvantages, so I'm inclined to think that cap and trade is also meant to do this. And I'm still working through my thoughts as well as the legislation on this one.
I do appreciate what you're trying to say about cap-and-trade basically being government intervention into the energy segment of our economy, and that the intervention will ripple throughout the economy. And while I would like verification that each green job costs 2.2 other jobs, I'll accept it for the sake of this discussion. Because those green jobs are investments in renewable energy. And the other jobs are investments in non-renewable energy. So the green jobs are sustainable, while the oil industry jobs are not. Is that not right? So while the green investment in the short run may be more costly, it's an investment that has to be made sometime, just to keep the energy segment of the economy viable. And we can bite the bullet now, or we can wait and let the free market address the issue, but if we do that, it could end up being far more costly. Because the free market isn't a long-term goal thinker, it's a profit maximizer without any interest beyond what, the next two, three decades? And the oil industry has been a terrific profit maximizer. So for the free market, the oil industry continues to be a solid investment as long as the oil continues to flow, even if it means pounding oil out of rocks. But as the oil becomes scarcer and scarcer, individual consumers are going to be less and less able to afford those commodities and their accompanying amenities. If cap and trade is designed to provide incentives to developing oil alternatives now, it may hurt the oil companies today, but smart oil executives would divert some of their resources to research focused on finding alternatives. Wouldn't they? I realize this is all very vague on my part, and I have lots of problems with the cap and trade legislation because frankly it's too big, too sweeping, and too much federal control. But I think that it's been a long time since we had a true free market, and true free markets have their advantages and their disadvantages. Government intervention is meant to minimize the disadvantages, so I'm inclined to think that cap and trade is also meant to do this. And I'm still working through my thoughts as well as the legislation on this one.
I can't think of many instances where government intervention didn't have unintended consequenses.
Now suppose you tell me how much of your oil actually goes to the lower 48.
Like I said, you had your heart set on selling that natural gas to world markets and screw the lower 48 and Canada. By the way, Canada sells us natural gas too. I have no issues with Canada or oil companies making a few bucks. What can I say, I'm a capitalist.
See, in MI we can't just deny access to the Great lakes because they are attached to our land. They belong to the nation. If you buy a piece of lake front property here, your property line ends where the water begins. And if you are sailing Lake Michigan, you are most certainly in Michigan, but no one from Michigan can tell you to get out of our lake. It doesn't work that way.
washingtonpost.com I think it's hilarious that a woman with so little education feels that she is qualified to comment on the economics of the most powerful and complex nation in the world.
A few thoughts on Palin's article in the WaPo:
- Obviously, she is NOT the one who wrote it.
- Obviously, she IS a front for the oil companies, paid to shill the company line, nothing more. A paid mouthpiece. A lobbyist.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Alaska is one of the United States. But the resources of Alaska belong to the Alaskan people. That's how they negotiate the oil leases and pipelines, at any rate.
I think it's hilarious that a woman with so little education feels that she is qualified to comment on the economics of the most powerful and complex nation in the world.
Not "your", it should be "you're". I'm not a grammar nazi, but when you respond to someone's post who's commenting on the intelligence and ability of another person, correct grammar is part of how you make your point.
Like I said, you had your heart set on selling that natural gas to world markets and screw the lower 48 and Canada. By the way, Canada sells us natural gas too. I have no issues with Canada or oil companies making a few bucks. What can I say, I'm a capitalist.
Actually, we're going to be needing that natural gas ourselves in Southcentral Alaska at some future point.
I don't exactly have my heart set on anything; makes no difference in my life if they build the pipeline or not. I would like to see my friends and neighbors who work in the energy field have the jobs that will come from such a project and I think that most people in Alaska would agree with that.
How much of our oil goes to the -48 again?
Just for fun, do you know how much of our salmon does?
Oh, and I'm a capitalist as well. And good capitalists know their markets.
One more time, in case you missed it:
Quote:
With increasing shale deposit production, and the increase in receiving capacity for LNG in the U.S. to 4.5 bcf per day, where does Alaska natural gas fit into the domestic U.S. market?
Answer: It does not.
Last edited by Metlakatla; 07-14-2009 at 05:08 PM..
Reason: grammatical error
Alaska is one of the United States. But the resources of Alaska belong to the Alaskan people. That's how they negotiate the oil leases and pipelines, at any rate.
Thanks for getting it.
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.
