[Oriz]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

You have to look at long term outlooks for supply and demand and that's not a pretty picture. What we're seeing is economic war being waged through reducing oil prices.

I've been hearing all about "peak oil" for almost 10 years now. And every time the choir starts their peak oil chant again(normally happens when oil is in the 100-140 dollar range) it crashes right infront of their face.

I have never mentioned it in the forum before but part of what I do for a living(besides managing my wife and I's business) is options trading. Oil crashing in 2008 was a given and so were the last few months. In fact I mentioned it in numerous places and I may have even mentioned it somewhere here at some point when it was still around $110 early this year. I remember telling my wife "gas prices are going down down down".

If you're talking extremely long term like closer to a decade then I'm with you. We will see new highs in oil. But for the next few years it's more towards $40 and wouldn't be surprised to see it at $30 either. Then we'll talk...

And don't listen to all the "experts" that will tell you AFTER the fact why something is happening. Those same experts kept saying before how gas prices are going over $5 a gallon any moment now. Well, I'm still waiting for 6 years now. Then they drop and they go well this is why they dropped. The real reason? It's all part of the looming and approaching deflation the FED has been trying foolishly to fight off for years now. This is why soy has dropped, corn, wheat, gold(also a given), silver(was an obvious burst of a bubble), copper etc. If it was just the economic war it would only be oil prices and it's not, it's most commodities and precious metals, foreign currencies relative to the dollar(euro etc), and soon to join, the last holdout traditionally, stocks will be back in the downtrend game. Deflation is coming. Whether the FED wants it to or not. The only thing rising for the next few years will be the dollar which everyone already buried - it has since already risen by 20% since but it's nowhere near done IMHO.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Oriz

I've been hearing all about "peak oil" for almost 10 years now. And every time the choir starts their peak oil chant again(normally happens when oil is in the 100-140 dollar range) it crashes right infront of their face.

I have never mentioned it in the forum before but part of what I do for a living(besides managing my wife and I's business) is options trading. Oil crashing in 2008 was a given and so were the last few months. In fact I mentioned it in numerous places and I may have even mentioned it somewhere here at some point when it was still around $110 early this year. I remember telling my wife "gas prices are going down down down".

If you're talking extremely long term like closer to a decade then I'm with you. We will see new highs in oil. But for the next few years it's more towards $40 and wouldn't be surprised to see it at $30 either. Then we'll talk...

And don't listen to all the "experts" that will tell you AFTER the fact why something is happening. Those same experts kept saying before how gas prices are going over $5 a gallon any moment now. Well, I'm still waiting for 6 years now. Then they drop and they go well this is why they dropped. The real reason? It's all part of the looming and approaching deflation the FED has been trying foolishly to fight off for years now. This is why soy has dropped, corn, wheat, gold(also a given), silver(was an obvious burst of a bubble), copper etc. If it was just the economic war it would only be oil prices and it's not, it's most commodities and precious metals, foreign currencies relative to the dollar(euro etc), and soon to join, the last holdout traditionally, stocks will be back in the downtrend game. Deflation is coming. Whether the FED wants it to or not. The only thing rising for the next few years will be the dollar which everyone already buried - it has since already risen by 20% since but it's nowhere near done IMHO.

I'm looking at 10 to 100 years out. The market isn't a great gauge of things except in the short term. Compare consumption rates and their trends with reserves and things aren't too rosy. It would be bad enough if it were only the demand from the U.S. and other western nations, but China and India, besides others, want what we have, and there isn't even enough for us in the long run. The energy issues are a fraction of the problem, our agricultural production depends on petroleum for fertilizers and pesticides to produce enough food. The economy will need to change in a major way, if there is an economy. More localized, and probably a return to more labor needed for agricultural production.

[Oriz]

10-100 years out no doubt, even the charts are showing once the recent decline is done(and like I said it has a few more years to go) then oil will start rising again towards new highs, finally. It wasn't going to happen in the last few years all the while everyone expected it. Expect extreme pessimism toward oil prices at the bottom several years down the line and for all the "experts" to tell you why it is going to keep going nothing but down and that is when it will start going up.

I agree with you about the changes to the economy. Right now part of the problem is governments and central banks trying to artificially hold things up. It prevents most people from seeing the real picture and making the necessary changes. Once that fails we will definitely see some changes such as more localized and a return to more labor for agricultural production. Hell, maybe even back to more manufacturing and less service sector? One can dream. A huge part of the problem is the switch between those two in the last 40 years.

[Diozark]

I dont believe in Universal Health Care. For one thing Health Care is Just like any other Business. There might be some doctor out there who actually cares about helping folks, ut most of them are in it for Money.
Sad but true, So How will it be different ?

As far as paying my fair share ? I did for years and now I am a victim of Mortgage fraud Sponsored By Our Government! and you think a government run health care will be good ? if its run by this government then,
run forest run!

Thanks For Posting,
I was considering moving to Vermont, But now not so much.

[cgregor]

Health care is not like any other business. When you find out you need a set of wheels to get from your house to your job, you don't suffer great pain and/or die if you don't buy a new car. You have a whole lot of other options, from bicycling to public transportation, to choose from. You also don't have just one car maker who can force you to buy a car at the price he sets. I would recommend you see the movie "SiCKO" to find out just how bad (we are 37th internationally) the American health care system is.

I am very sorry to hear that you apparently a victim of mortgage fraud, especially if you are one of the 14,000,000 householders who unfairly and unjustly lost their home because of the 2008 Wall Street collapse. I am very angry at Congress for bailing them out, at the White House for failing to jail those responsible, and at this rump congress for striking out the provisions in Dodd-Frank which would have kept the government from bailing them out again the next time it happens.

However, you are mistaken that it was "sponsored" by the US government. It was overseen by a government that believed that an unregulated market would automatically work in the best interests of all and failed to act when the dangers were pointed out; but government did not sponsor it.

If, however, you live in a state with a judicial system like Florida's and had to suffer its extremely prejudicial form of mortgage review, then you indeed are a victim of state government sponsorship of mortgage fraud. I don't know how Rick Scott--whose hospital corporation is the biggest defrauder of Medicare of any business in history-- $84 billion-- managed to get re-elected. I guess Floridians are just programmed against insurrection."

Vermont did not have the housing bubble most of the country had-- we were very lucky not to have such greedy mortgage brokers-- but we did have a few cases; I personally know one family that was almost ruined, but they could afford a good lawyer.

I hope you can find justice.

[Oriz]

Originally Posted by cgregor

I am very sorry to hear that you apparently a victim of mortgage fraud, especially if you are one of the 14,000,000 householders who unfairly and unjustly lost their home because of the 2008 Wall Street collapse. I am very angry at Congress for bailing them out, at the White House for failing to jail those responsible, and at this rump congress for striking out the provisions in Dodd-Frank which would have kept the government from bailing them out again the next time it happens.

.

The bailouts are one of the few areas where socialists and true capitalists/libertarians agree. I think they were an insane joke, I was against them then and I'll be against them again when they happen again in a few years.

[VT'ah]

seems like the only people happy in VT these days are the ex-FBI director, Dos XXX guy, other wealthy actors and retirees, etc...I guess I don't blame them, that type of money buys a nice piece of property...else, you are stuck looking for work and cant afford the high priced property...it is a shame but I guess it keeps the undesirables out.

[mdovell]

"Taxes should be based on an ability to pay. That's why income tax, as much as I hate it, works. I do not agree with you on renting being better because it's easier. I hate the renter mindset and the dependence it fosters. Moreover, if you factor in the hours worked to pay the rent, you're not getting anything easier."

But it is very easy for people to not pay income taxes. They simply use revenue to create revenue and then it falls under capital gains. This is how people ultimately become wealthy. Now we don't have a tax on wealth itself just the means. Technically one can argue the estate tax is a wealth tax but anyone that really falls under it pretty much already has a trust set up and donated money away. Income taxes pretty much don't work because if work dries up so does the income. How much did Michigan lose when GM had layoffs in the 1980s? In Vermont they are shutting down the yankee plant and that's 550 jobs at an average of 105K each. Most jobs in VT outside of Burlington hardly pay anything at all. If they had structured themselves like NH this wouldn't be an issue because the baseline of state property tax is always factored in.

As for peak oil frankly there is no peak. There is a limit eventually but fraking works. Also efficiency keeps growing. In the mid 1970's the big three tried to say a car that gets 25mpg would be a death trap the size of a Gremlin. Now SUV's get that easily. We are less dependent on oil as we were in the past. Email has gradually replaced mail, 3d printers replacing custom orders from factories, teleconferencing replacing business travel, mp3's replacing cd's, ereaders replacing books etc. As you have less to make and ship you pretty much have less to move. I would argue we have peak car
Peak car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Outside of the USA there just isn't the same demand. So fraking with a lack of significant exports pretty much causes a supply glut. Remember also that going forward the CAFE mandates mean every new car will have a higher mpg so demand technically can drop as you get more for your gasoline. Add in some ride sharing and it reduces demand further. I've seen a huge increase in the number of lyft and uber drivers in Mass as prices dropped. That creates less incentives to need a car which further lowers demand.
Wave Goodbye to the Two-Car Family - NBC News
One less garage means more livable space (i.e. a billiards table, a larger basement, a workshop etc)

Eventually what will happen is we'll have cars that just drive themselves. Sure they'll be expensive first but consider the fact that 95% of the time a car just sits there.From a scientific management perspective it would easily be a bottleneck. From this an autocar would be shared. You'd get some sort of lyft/uber like service on demand 24/7. It would reduce insurance costs, needs to expand public transit in rural/remote areas etc.

I think for the most part we are going to see deflation because we are consuming less and as baby boomers retire that inheritance would offset new production. Why buy a new house if you already inherit one? What about all of the cars, boats, furniture etc. Sure some of it wears down but even if someone doesn't want to keep it they can sell it so it could be an explosion more in online retail.

"Then you find out you need a set of wheels to get from your house to your job, you don't suffer great pain and/or die if you don't buy a new car. You have a whole lot of other options, from bicycling to public transportation, to choose from. You also don't have just one car maker who can force you to buy a car at the price he sets. I would recommend you see the movie "SiCKO" to find out just how bad (we are 37th internationally) the American health care system is."

but we aren't technically bad because much of that movie was edited specifically to make it look bad. Health is dictated by diet, exercise and environment. Health care is much more then simply having insurance. I live in Mass and some act like Romneycare created cures for cancer, it didn't. People still smoke, do drugs, be lazy, get fat, get diabetes etc. The same problems are there. Chris Rock used to say the difference between those with and without health insurance is with it you get to die on a mattress! Health care is more about quality of life rather then actual life and death. Even with a single payer system people still die from the same things people die from in the USA.

The real issue I see is when people act like healthcare can come in a box or a form or a pill. Here you go right from Amazon here is healthcare! It means so much more. It means having a good health inspector for food, safety inspectors for products, complete streets with roads with sidewalks and bikelanes, adult playgrounds (no joke), access to fruits and vegetables, promoting less smog, limiting tobacco and alcohol (within the law) etc.

[cgregor]

Au contraire, it only keeps the low-income undesirables out!

Jeffrey Skilling, of Enron notoriety, had a $3 million pied-a-terre in Norwich. Maybe he has a scrapbook with a picture of it under his bunk in the minimum-security prison in Colorado. Jeffrey did a lot more damage to a lot more people than did, say, present Vermont resident (and presumably indigent) "Squeaky" Fromme, the Manson follower who tried assassinate Gerald Ford. But the Skilling types, because they are wealthy, are presumed to be of nonpareil intelligence and sterling character. So, we let them buy another bauble to display to their crowd.

Vermont should have an income and property tax policy that makes people like Donald Trump drop his jaw and exclaim, "You can afford to live in Vermont?" Trump being Trump, he would immediately try to buy two properties in Vermont...

[cgregor]

Originally Posted by mdovell

The real issue I see is when people act like healthcare can come in a box or a form or a pill. Here you go right from Amazon here is healthcare! It means so much more. It means having a good health inspector for food, safety inspectors for products, complete streets with roads with sidewalks and bikelanes, adult playgrounds (no joke), access to fruits and vegetables, promoting less smog, limiting tobacco and alcohol (within the law) etc.

Dislike "SiCKO" as you may, there are core messages in it that are true: 1. The health care industry bought Congress. 2. The health care industry (still, even under Obamacare) does what it can to maximize its profits. 3. Even though Americans might in general have unhealthy lifestyles, what we get treated for costs much more than it does in other countries.

Add to this the complaints of practitioners across the land: 1. Unless they are specialists drumming up their own business, they have an insurance company bureaucrat dictating treatment of the patient in the name of corporate profit. 2. Since most of them are employees of a medical network, they are under constraints to produce profit for the system rather than treat the patient. 3. They cannot, if a couple covered by different policies come in with the same condition, guarantee equal or even equitable treatment for both of them.

And of the First World countries (well, maybe we're totally out of that group by now, except for military spending), only America does not free people from the worries of (a) whether to pay for a doctor's visit or buy food for the family and (b) how to afford the treatment of the illness that made them too sick to keep working to pay for the health insurance.

The governor might have stepped back from universal coverage, but the fight will continue. Dr. Deb Richter started it ten years before the legislature finally acted, and she (and her many allies) are not going to give up.