Obamaconomy!!!

Werbung:
Pidgey said:
I was generally including The Masses in that "The idea that you're..." Yes, it's likely that the elite rich will have access to hydrogen as a portable energy carrier.

Yes, I understand that proponents are capable of literally building a small distribution network as well as supplying a very small number of operational vehicles at an extreme loss to generate PR in order to garner enough public sentiment to get subsidies codified. "Food for fuel" (ethanol) essentially worked the same way, you know, and while almost everyone's finally come to some agreement that that's a real BS solution, it's still finding its way into our gasoline, isn't it?

Lemme' ask you a few direct questions, Mr. Shaman: Did you bother to read that hydrogen economy link? Any of it? And if you did, do you have the requisite knowledge required to digest it? Further, do you just categorically deny the plausibility because it doesn't fit in with your idea of a Utopian future if only you can get rid of all the Republicans, Conservatives, Christians and whatever?
Click to expand...

I've been reading your posts with great interest. You've provided some excellent links, so thank you for that.

I think your question to Sham-man has an obvious answer: NO. He has proved repeatedly to be incredibly obtuse and selective in the "facts" he uses to formulate and support his positions. Periodically I take him off my Ignore list to see what sort of garbage he's spewing. This is typical.

A comment on the ethanol issue: Michigan, my beloved home state, has led the way as a recessionary Pied Piper. Since 2003, our ignominious Gov. Granholm and legislature Democrats have been pouring money into the industry. It's a separate discussion altogether, so I'll not go into it in this thread, but let this link to Great Lakes Ethanol suffice. Note please, that the website states that it's "currently under construction." Note also that it was last "updated" in 2004.... And an article of MITA: Michigan Infrastructure & Transportation Association, in this case specifically about that aspect. But indicative of a MUCH larger problem.
 
Welcome.

Shaffer's First Law of Human Dynamics: "Passion and desire drive the rationale, and not the reverse as we all so desperately want to believe." Mr. Shaman's... "posts" demonstrate malignant hatred above all else. That's not to say that Mr. Shaman is incapable of being correct from time to time, you know--just that Mr. Shaman is, shall we say... definitely a divider, not a uniter! Mr. Shaman has conjured up a long buried memory of some kid I knew many decades ago on the playground at school whose mouth was always open, head thrust forward and hurling invective at someone, while his butt invariably jutted backwards counterbalancing his head. That kid was always that way... and to virtually everyone. You'd honestly have felt pity if he weren't so incredibly and cumulatively irritating. Maybe it was the only way that anyone would ever pay any attention to him?

But I digress...

I often find myself wobbling back and forth between the idea that Our Illustrious Leaders aren't really very bright, just greedy versus the conspiracy theory that they're using the rest of us to fund enough development to handle their bright future while we're eventually converted back into serfdom. While those two thoughts don't appear very different on the surface, it all comes down to whether or not they're doing what they're doing as blithering idiots or as malignantly intelligent.

To be completely frank, I'm not completely sure which would disturb me more.

In any case, life isn't too fair is it? There's always someone trying to steal what you've got. Absolute altruism doesn't quite get it, either. I'm sure that even Mr. Shaman would balk at the idea of equally sharing his or her portion in this game of life. For instance, in 2006 the sum of the world's primary energy production was: 469.412 quadrillion BTUs. Divided altruistically equally between all 6.7 billion homo sapiens, we get a daily per capita consumption of about 191,818 BTUs, or the energy equivalent of about 1.53 gallons (US) of gasoline. Naturally, that would have to cover your vehicular travel; heating your bathwater & your domicile; the manufacture of all your stuff; your junk mail; the production, packaging, preparation and transport of all the foods that you consume; ad nauseum...

...well... crap! I guess that all of us here in the developed world are really being horribly greedy from the viewpoint of the folks who live more aboriginal lives. Just depends on your point of view, huh? Another really hypocritical thing is how so many Darwinians aren't very forgiving when the same principals are applied in the business world, eh?

Its easy to wish for some kind of wonderful Nash Equilibrium in this Zero Sum Game world--it's quite another to actually pull it off. The worse because the more energy you feed into an organic population, the more of them you get. And, no matter how big one might imagine the world to be, it's still a very finite playground.
 
My greatest fear with the energy crisis is that it will once again be swept under the rug. Every time since 197? a gasoline price hike has stirred up the call for action. And every time the crisis slowly fades into the night - and along with it goes any hope of ridding ourselves of our dependence on petroleum. This incessant talk of alternative energy sources that never stand up to cost-benefit analysis always diverts the conversation until the crisis blows over.

And then we are back in the same old petroleum groove again. During the presidential campaign both candidates said the same thing, "all of the above". Well, all of the above is the wrong answer! We need a long-range and realistic energy policy or this country is going to suffer ever greater consequences in the future.
 
Hobo1 said:
My greatest fear with the energy crisis is that it will once again be swept under the rug. Every time since 197? a gasoline price hike has stirred up the call for action. And every time the crisis slowly fades into the night - and along with it goes any hope of ridding ourselves of our dependence on petroleum. This incessant talk of alternative energy sources that never stand up to cost-benefit analysis always diverts the conversation until the crisis blows over.

And then we are back in the same old petroleum groove again. During the presidential campaign both candidates said the same thing, "all of the above". Well, all of the above is the wrong answer! We need a long-range and realistic energy policy or this country is going to suffer ever greater consequences in the future.
Click to expand...
Oh, don't worry--I don't think it's going to get swept under the rug this time... Are you familiar with Hubbert's mathematical analysis of first the US and then the world? The true test of such a theory is how well it predicts. Here's one of the more succinct summaries on it that I've seen:

http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/subpages/hubbertmaths/hubbertmaths.html

Most folks don't have any kind of a real grasp of energy in our developed world, how it's produced, distributed and utilized.
 
Mr. Shaman said:
I'm shocked that no "conservatives" have shown any enthusiasm, regarding Wall Street, today.​
Click to expand...

The Dow and the Nas are up 5% after losing 25%. I am not impressed.

But I do hope that this is the beginning of a turn around. Since virtually none of the stimulus package has had any effect yet it would prove that the stim had nothing to do with the recovery.

Sadly, the recover will probably not come for another year or two and then things won't be so clear.
 
Mostly predicated on Vikram Pandit's statement about Citi--there haven't been any indications of capitulation or that we've achieved a true bottom yet. We certainly haven't cleared out "The Bezzle" yet.

In any case, please take a moment to study this:

2555740220073664377S600x600Q85.jpg


Now... do you notice how the gray line (1929 crash and resultant depression) wobbles both above and below the straight red line? The amplitude of the swings are relatively significant. At this exact period of crash starting in 1929, there was about a 7% upswing, which would translate to almost a 1000 point climb on our current DOW track. Until you see certain other market sector indicators, it's just another sucker rally.
 
Pidgey said:
Mostly predicated on Vikram Pandit's statement about Citi--there haven't been any indications of capitulation or that we've achieved a true bottom yet. We certainly haven't cleared out "The Bezzle" yet.

In any case, please take a moment to study this:

2555740220073664377S600x600Q85.jpg


Now... do you notice how the gray line (1929 crash and resultant depression) wobbles both above and below the straight red line? The amplitude of the swings are relatively significant.
Click to expand...
Especially when current-results will remind folks (more) of 1993-2000!!!!

:p​
 
Pidgey said:
Now... do you notice how the gray line (1929 crash and resultant depression) wobbles both above and below the straight red line? The amplitude of the swings are relatively significant. At this exact period of crash starting in 1929, there was about a 7% upswing, which would translate to almost a 1000 point climb on our current DOW track. Until you see certain other market sector indicators, it's just another sucker rally.
Click to expand...

Another way to explain this is to consider the loss of relatively liquid wealth that occurred in the US alone since the beginning of the housing downturn. Two of our greatest reservoir of wealth are in real estate and in our public corporations. In both sectors we have already lost approximately 30-50% of its worth. That means that both families and business have been significantly impacted.

In 2006 the total net worth of the US is guesstimated to be around $50-60 trillion. In the year 2008 household net worth in the United States declined by an average of $11.2 trillion.

Without attempting to make an in depth mathematical analysis (sorry Pidgey) of what this loss of net worth means, it does not take a stroke of genius to see that we (collectively) have lost a lot of money from our economy. This is the money that we rely upon to make our economic engine grow, to provide pay checks, and to fuel consumer spending. You can see we are down a whole lot more than the several trillion dollars that the government is throwing at the problem.

In fact, all the stimulus/bailout plans that Congress can conger up will never come close to the amount of wealth that has been lost in the past 1 1/2 years. This is where we are right now... today! We haven't even begun to see a recovery. Prices are still falling in real estate and the stock market can be defined as "holding steady" (at best). The employment rate is still falling.

For a recovery to take place, our business economy must start to grow again. Our GDP must start to grow again. Employment must start to grow. We are seeing NONE of those signs of a recovery. If you focus on the stock market's wobbles as some indicator - you are wearing blinders. We have taken a terrible blow to our economy and only time will get us out.

I have full confidence that our entrepreneurial spirit, and our skilled, educated, and productive work force will get us out of this recession - but this can only happen over time. There is no quick fix! As much as the politician would like you to believe this, the graphs of past recessions and simple logic tells you that only time will allow economic engine to both 1) restart and then 2) begin to grow again.

Right now the economic engine is dead and guy in the shop has the carburetor on the floor, and is cleaning the plugs. We are nowhere near ready to turn the ignition key yet.
 
Hobo1 said:
Another way to explain this is to consider the loss of relatively liquid wealth that occurred in the US alone since the beginning of the housing downturn. Two of our greatest reservoir of wealth are in real estate and in our public corporations. In both sectors we have already lost approximately 30-50% of its worth. That means that both families and business have been significantly impacted.

In 2006 the total net worth of the US is guesstimated to be around $50-60 trillion. In the year 2008 household net worth in the United States declined by an average of $11.2 trillion.

Without attempting to make an in depth mathematical analysis (sorry Pidgey) of what this loss of net worth means, it does not take a stroke of genius to see that we (collectively) have lost a lot of money from our economy. This is the money that we rely upon to make our economic engine grow, to provide pay checks, and to fuel consumer spending. You can see we are down a whole lot more than the several trillion dollars that the government is throwing at the problem.

In fact, all the stimulus/bailout plans that Congress can conger up will never come close to the amount of wealth that has been lost in the past 1 1/2 years. This is where we are right now... today! We haven't even begun to see a recovery. Prices are still falling in real estate and the stock market can be defined as "holding steady" (at best). The employment rate is still falling.

For a recovery to take place, our business economy must start to grow again. Our GDP must start to grow again. Employment must start to grow. We are seeing NONE of those signs of a recovery. If you focus on the stock market's wobbles as some indicator - you are wearing blinders. We have taken a terrible blow to our economy and only time will get us out.

I have full confidence that our entrepreneurial spirit, and our skilled, educated, and productive work force will get us out of this recession - but this can only happen over time. There is no quick fix! As much as the politician would like you to believe this, the graphs of past recessions and simple logic tells you that only time will allow economic engine to both 1) restart and then 2) begin to grow again.

Right now the economic engine is dead and guy in the shop has the carburetor on the floor, and is cleaning the plugs. We are nowhere near ready to turn the ignition key yet.
Click to expand...

But there is one major problem. I think the public is waiting on government to fix the issue. This in turn causes the economy to stall, because it's people going out and creating wealth, that improves the economy.

When people are sitting on welfare waiting for Obama to create jobs, they fail to get out there and work.

When business are holding off on a doing a job, because they might get a stimulus grant, they fail to create jobs and wealth.

Further, Obama is dragging out the negative effects in our economy, such as buying AIG and trying to sell it. No corporation is going to buy AIG when the government owns a 70% stake. That we give government stock in their company, and you can see how government has tried to dictate to AIG already. So AIG will still crash, it's just a matter of how much tax money is sunk into the company. Meanwhile, the negative repercussion of this dragged out bankruptcy, will have a longer lasting effect on the economy as a whole.

Lastly, we need to put less stock in the stock market. The money supposedly lost, was never 'real' to begin with. If you have 10 shares at $50 per share, and the price drops to $10, have you really lost money? You didn't actually have $500 bucks before, and you don't actually have $100 bucks now. Only when you sell the shares of stock, does the actual monetary values become realized.

Did you ever wonder why they say the DOW has lost 3,000 *points* since 2008, instead of dollars? This is why. No money has been lost. Only theoretical value of the shares of been lost. The only people who actually lose money are those that sell off their stock when the price is low. Which is the least intelligent thing to do.
 
Hobo, folks like Mr. Shaman believe that the loss of money to the economy is mostly if not completely due to the thieving of the 1%-ers and that The Democrats are coming to the rescue of The Victims. On that basis, they don't believe anything that you say if you're on or seem to be siding with The Dark Side.

I just wish people could learn how to think...

Anyhow, this particular write-up is an absolutely wonderful piece describing the foibles and fortes of the fractional reserve banking system. You might need to read sections of it a few times to work it out but it answers a lot of questions. When you finally learn to think in the system, our situation becomes painfully clear:

http://market-ticker.org/archives/865-Reserve-Banking.html
 
Werbung:
Andy said:
Lastly, we need to put less stock in the stock market. The money supposedly lost, was never 'real' to begin with. If you have 10 shares at $50 per share, and the price drops to $10, have you really lost money? You didn't actually have $500 bucks before, and you don't actually have $100 bucks now. Only when you sell the shares of stock, does the actual monetary values become realized.

Did you ever wonder why they say the DOW has lost 3,000 *points* since 2008, instead of dollars? This is why. No money has been lost. Only theoretical value of the shares of been lost. The only people who actually lose money are those that sell off their stock when the price is low. Which is the least intelligent thing to do.
Click to expand...

This idea of what is money and what is wealth is a hard one to get your hands around.

Ask yourself... "How much money do I have?" Well, I have about $35 in my wallet, but that is about it. In reality, all of my money is held in an account somewhere. Virtually all of your money is being held on an accounting sheet somewhere. "I have money in my checking account"... no you don't, the bank has already lent 90% of that money to say Super-Duper Computer Store. That is the way wealth is created. Both you and Super-Duper Computer think they have that money. Indeed Super-Duper Computer has hard assets in the form of computers sitting on the shelf in their store.

You don't have money in the bank, you have an IOU from the bank. It isn't 'real' money. In fact, you didn't put 'real' money in the bank in the first place. You put your paycheck in the bank - which was an IOU being transferred from your employer's bank to yours. So you didn't get paid in 'real' money either.

In the United States we all operate on the principle that our institutions can be trusted to hold our wealth and the number printed on the page is indeed our money. But it is all an illusion. The only difference between money that you have in the bank and money you have in the stock market is that the FDIC guarantees the money you have in the bank. But even that is a matter of risk. Your money in the bank is guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the government. If the US banking system and the Federal Reserve were to go bankrupt like has happened in many other countries, then we would all be losers.

In the final analysis, it is all a matter "of how much risk do you want to take?" Money is at risk even if you put it under your mattress - over time it will dramatically loose value simply by inflation.

I always like the quote from the film Gone with the Wind:
"Why, land is the only thing in the world worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the only thing that lasts." ​

But in the recession, we have seen that even the price of land is not free from risk. All of life is a risk, and wealth is never "safe" no matter where you keep it. The secret is knowing how much risk to take - and at what time.
 
Back
Top