Gas prices going up, here we go again...

[Slobrain]

Well, I wonder why the gas prices are going up?

Looks like price gouging by the big oil companies again but no excuses this time like Oh, a hurricane caused this or a storm caused that or what!

It’s getting damn ridiculous that they keep getting away with this crap.

I know I'll get flames by the Bush lovers here but damn these repubs always looking to help big companies like the oil industry. I bet if gas goes up too hi there will be a recession this year from this crap.

When does this shit ever end any more???


My rant for today!!!

SLO

[bulldogguitars]

Man Im with ya. I can barely afford to fill my car anymore let alone pay the bills and keep a roof over our head and keep my family fed.

[Satamax]

He Slo, comme over here and you'll see, 1€08 for a liter (3.79 liters to the US galon!) of diesel, which is the cheapest fuel besides LPG over here! And i'm not talking about housing or rent prices! 380sqft cost me 432 euros a month, with no heating water or electricity included! In a litle mountain village where there's not many jobs going around!

[TD_Madden]

actually it's the jerks on wall-street driving the prices up on oil-futures....then taking big profits, with the cycle starting over...

[spiffpeters]

No single answer to the rising cost of fuel (oil). Many reasons.

Whenever some rightie or anti-government type starts complaining about gas prices, I simply re-introduce them to their 'free-market' economic model. Get's 'em sputterin' every time.

Not much I can do about the price of gas. Pump prices are more or less a function of supply/demand. The oil companies are greedy, and I know that someone will pipe up that they only have a 10% margin. Weak argument. 10% margin on tubes or amp kits is one thing, 10% margin on a fundamental commodity of which the global economy is dependent is all together another matter. Ever seen a poor or suffering oil company?

The oil company's have a captive market, they know it, we know. All we can do as individuals is to limit our dependence on their product. I drive less, purchase the most energy efficient appliances I can get, turn off unused lights.....

[Slobrain]

$2.50 at the pump today and rising

Greenspan says possible recession and the hi gas prices coupled with sub prime loans problem? Hmmmmm Where is this going???


BTW, did anyone watch dateline tonight? It was about Identity theft.

Looks like it’s coming from a lot of other countries hitting us here in the good ol USA. And these sneaky bastards are suckering in lonely folks here on these date chat forums to get them to send items bought on stolen CC's to Africa and some other countries. Some of these lonely folks are really stupid to fall into that trap. They are the ones that are going to do jail time, not the real thieves.

I just wonder why a show like Dateline can catch up to some of these thieves but our Law enforcement can't?

My opinion is, if you get caught stealing some ones identity you should be strung up and hanged!

[spiffpeters]

I was watching Dateline last week and Hansen went over to England to track down those "Nigerian's" that need American bank accounts to stash their millions of dollars.

He met up with a couple of them, but was not able to arrest them even though they were caught red handed.

The only way this new breed of thief will be brought to justice is when the corporations decide to focus their lobbying efforts on this issue, both here and abroad.

[Slobrain]

Originally Posted by spiffpeters

I was watching Dateline last week and Hansen went over to England to track down those "Nigerian's" that need American bank accounts to stash their millions of dollars.

He met up with a couple of them, but was not able to arrest them even though they were caught red handed.

The only way this new breed of thief will be brought to justice is when the corporations decide to focus their lobbying efforts on this issue, both here and abroad.

Spiff, I agree with ya totally. Man, the only thing the damn Nigerians are doing is hurting Americans and the CC companies don't give a shit. They just pass on the extra charges to us who use CC. Its sickening to say the least. It seems the most ID theft is coming from Africa.

I wonder why the FBI doesn't do anything either instead of wire tapping phones illegally on folks. They should be chasing the bad guys down and rockin their world, but are they???

I still blame the PIP, ever since Bush has been in power the country is going to SHIT!!! Big time. Everything right has gone ass backards

My rant.

[spiffpeters]

Sarcasm ON ---

I'm guessing here, but perhaps if we want to pursue international ID thiefs, we need the co-operation of other nations. Oh wait, we don't really care what other country's think of us, nor do we care if they want to co-operate with us. We are the premier super power, we do not need anyone's permission or help.

--- Sarcasm OFF

As for Bush being a failure (I'm still waiting for someone to point out any policy of his that has produced positive affects, intentionally or otherwise), I think we are seeing the beginning of the end of his regime. He claimed many things in 2000 and 2004. But the one thing he said that I'll never forget is that he would be bring honor and dignity back to the white house.

There's ample evidence to support the contrary to that claim. Male prostitutes and Abramoff are simply the tip of the iceberg.

Or how our CIC reacted when these words were whispered in his ear: "Sir, the country's under attack."

How could the CIC of the worlds only super power sit in a elementary school classroom for seven minutes, reading a childrens book, after being told the country is under attack? Remember, he wasn't told of the nature of the attack, just that the country was under attack. He had no way of knowing what kind of attack, the scale or scope of the attack or anything. Anyone in the right mind would have excused themselves right there and start acting like a leader.

Just my opinion. But that's what happens when you get a corporate schill in the white house.

[Earl Norton]

"Consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If the diplomats who have mishandled our relations with Russia were merely stupid, they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor." - James Forrestal, Secretary of Defense 1949

I don't think any of the current administration is stupid.

[TD_Madden]

look out for the EEEEVIIIIILLLLL BOOOOOSH....

[bob p]

Originally Posted by spiffpeters

The oil companies are greedy, and I know that someone will pipe up that they only have a 10% margin. Weak argument. 10% margin on tubes or amp kits is one thing, 10% margin on a fundamental commodity of which the global economy is dependent is all together another matter.

What's the difference?

[jaxbeachrick]

bobp please check your pm's.

[Slobrain]

Originally Posted by Earl Norton

"Consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If the diplomats who have mishandled our relations with Russia were merely stupid, they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor." - James Forrestal, Secretary of Defense 1949

I don't think any of the current administration is stupid.

So Bush is smart? when did that happen???

[spiffpeters]

Volume. That's the difference. That and without oil, the entire global economy would implode. Tubes or tube amps are not a vital component in the scheme of global commerce.

[bob p]

Originally Posted by spiffpeters

Volume. That's the difference. That and without oil, the entire global economy would implode. Tubes or tube amps are not a vital component in the scheme of global commerce.

do i understand this correctly, that the profitability of manufacturing an item should be based upon whether it is a discretionary item or a necessity?

[spiffpeters]

"...that the profitability of manufacturing an item should be based upon whether it is a discretionary item or a necessity?"

Your words not mine. I merely said that I find it ironic that some of the loudest protestors about gas prices and oil company profits are often times major proponents of free market.

Many folks will defend the oil industry by saying their margin is only 10%, at best. Well heck, I'd take a 10% margin on anything that the entire globe is dependent on. I wouldn't call it a monopoly, but you won't find to many upstarts of new oil companies coming around. The opposite seems to be the case however.

I say let the oil companies charge $5/gallon if it'll make them happy. I don't really care. My lifestyle and choices are not limited or compromised by the cost gasoline.

[bob p]

your words not mine.

not really my words at all. i thought that you had clearly suggested that was the case when you made this comment:

10% margin on tubes or amp kits is one thing, 10% margin on a fundamental commodity of which the global economy is dependent is all together another matter.

i thought that statement clearly suggested that a "fundamental commodity" should have a lower profit margin solely because people depend on it. maybe i over-interpreted your words, but i thought the intended meaning was clear enough.

personally, i don't think that it should matter one way or the other whether someone has a 10% markup or a 100% markup on an item, regardless of whether or not it is a luxury item or a necessity. market pricing will ultimately trump artificial attempts at margin control. besides, the commission-based cost +10% model may be great for merchandise that gets drop shipped, but it isn't very applicable for any item that has cost associated with development and/or maintaining in inventory. if businesses had to live according to such artificial standards, a lot of business would go out of business. but then i'm digressing into what should really be a lecture in Econ 101.

[spiffpeters]

I used a poor selection of words.

It has been stated that oil companies only enjoy about a 10% margin. I am in no position to dispute this figure.

I'll take 10% margin of a fundemental commodity over 100% margin on a luxury item any day. And twice on Sunday!

I don't believe that markets are self-regulating. Perhaps in the purest, or most academic models they are. But greed tends to interrupt the normally amoral market place. And then a regulatory body needs to intervene and usually over corrects. And the cycle gones on and on.

Standard oil, AT&T, Enron and so on.

[bob p]

i'm not sure that greed is so bad for the markets. honest greed isn't a bad thing -- greed on both sides of a transaction is what makes honest markets efficient. OTOH lack of transparency leads to dishonest greed -- now that's something that causes a real problem.

[spiffpeters]

"honest greed isn't a bad thing -- greed on both sides of a transaction is what makes honest markets efficient."

I agree 99%. I don't believe that greed is or should be a component in needs based transactions. Consumers have an obligation to limit their dependency on needs based consumables to a sustainable level. In essence, their consumption should be limited to their capacity to pay for these goods/services. Historically, people were not able to live beyond their means. But with the advent of equity loans and sub-prime mortages, the natural barrier to greed has deterioted or been diminished substantially.

But I digress.

Essentially, I make a distinction between my own wants and needs. My needs are not driven by greed and when possible I chose to not conduct any needs based transactions where the other side of the equation has a gross or greed based profit motivation.

When purchasing a household appliance, a car, a tool, an instrument or amp, etc..., I am perfectly comfortable, and expect the market to dictate the going price.

But monopolies are anti-free market. Monopolies are pure greed and some form of government regulation is neccessary to ensure that consumers are not put over the barrel, so to speak.

[madialex]

Originally Posted by Slobrain

So Bush is smart? when did that happen???

Hi Slo, I think what he is saying is none of them are stupid, all this crap they want us to beleive is a mistake or stupid is really well thought out and planned. If they were really stupid they would actually do at least 1 thing right by mistake but so far everything is screwed up.. By design? I think so!

[madialex]

Originally Posted by spiffpeters

But monopolies are anti-free market. Monopolies are pure greed and some form of government regulation is neccessary to ensure that consumers are not put over the barrel, so to speak.

But are not the oil companies a monopoly. The big 4 got bought out by BP now 1 very large one. I'd say thats as close to a monopoly as you get. Now Cable, thats a monopoly..........

[hasserl]

As for Bush being a failure (I'm still waiting for someone to point out any policy of his that has produced positive affects, intentionally or otherwise),

Dude, you're living in one of the best economies of all time. Bush inherited a failing economy from the previous administration, and very early on the economy suffered greatly from the terrorist attacks of 9-11; the bursting of the tech bubble, the near colapse of the airline industry, and yet unemployment in the states is down in the low 4% range, and the economy is buzzing along fantastically. Is this just coincidence? Of course not, it's mostly due to the fantastic tax cuts that the Bush admin was able to get passed.

What about the fact that we have not suffered a single terrorist attack on our soil since the attacks of 9-11? Did anyone expect this would be the case on 9-12? Is this just coincidence too? Of course not!

Another "positive affect" (sic) of Bush policy is the benefit to us all on numerous levels of the Bush Admin's steadfast refusal to fall under the control of chicken little global warming hierarchists and egalitarians.

Just a few positive affects.

So Bush is smart? when did that happen???

Graduated from Yale and an MBA from Harvard Business School, licensed to fly jet fighter's. And you?

I'll take 10% margin of a fundemental commodity over 100% margin on a luxury item any day. And twice on Sunday!

What does this even mean? You'll take??? You show incredible ignorance of economics, I recommend a heavy dose of Dr. Walter Williams:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/

I don't believe that markets are self-regulating. Perhaps in the purest, or most academic models they are. But greed tends to interrupt the normally amoral market place. And then a regulatory body needs to intervene and usually over corrects.

I suppose you might have a point, IF YOU COULD FIND A REGULATORY BODY THAT WASN'T AS CONTROLLED BY GREED AS ANY BUSINESS!!!!!!

The big 4 got bought out by BP now 1 very large one. I'd say thats as close to a monopoly as you get.

That is not correct, Exxon Mobile is the largest oil company in the world, quite a bit larger than the next largest oil company, which is probably Royal Dutch Shell, followed by BP. BP is a very large company, but it is not the largest oil company, and is very far from being a monopoly. Consider that Exxon Mobile controls only about 3% of the world's petroleum reserve. If the largest oil company in the world controls only 3% of the reserves, how can the 3rd largest be considered a monopoly? The small percent of control Exxon Mobile has refutes the idea that the oil companies control the price of oil, none of them, nor all of them together are not a monopoly (all of them together could not be a monopoly anyway).

[bob p]

Originally Posted by hasserl

Dude, you're living in one of the best economies of all time. Bush inherited a failing economy from the previous administration, and very early on the economy suffered greatly from the terrorist attacks of 9-11; the bursting of the tech bubble, the near colapse of the airline industry, and yet unemployment in the states is down in the low 4% range, and the economy is buzzing along fantastically. Is this just coincidence? Of course not, it's mostly due to the fantastic tax cuts that the Bush admin was able to get passed.

Good point. I agree that the "Bush" tax cuts had a positive impact, but I think that their overall effect on the economy has been overshadowed by the Federal Reserve's rather permissive stance on monetary policy. Understanding this point involves only a few minutes of attention span, which might make the point incomprehensible for people who only like to chew on sound bites and are inclined to disagree with what hasserl has already said.

Going into Y2K, the Fed provided liquidity that was far in excess of what was actually needed -- they did this primarily out of the fear of economic collapse if the Y2K catastrophe turned out to be real rather than imagined.

The extent Great Depression was tremendously exacerbated by overly tight monetary policy in the 1930s. We learned a lession about the evils of tight monetary policy from the Great Depression, and the Greenspan Fed wanted to assure that we would not revisit those circumstances if Y2K turned out to be a true cataclysmic event.

A downside of this excessive liquidity going into Y2K was tech stock speculation ("irrational exuberance") and rampant asset price inflation. The Fed responded by gradually raising interest rates, which put a damper on the economy.

The first bubble to be burst was stock market speculation, and we had the tech collapse of the late 1990s. Like the 1920s, market speculation was so widespread and excessive that a crash had the potential to cause extreme and widespread economic hardship, so the Fed loosened monetary policy again.

The problem though, was that the Fed loosened prematurely -- they loosened policy soon enough that the economy achieved the proverbial "soft landing," and averted widespread economic hardship. This premature loosening, however, took away all of the corrective forces that had been in play to put a damper on asset price inflation. As a result, asset price inflation continued to go unchecked, which has led to absolutely absurd price increases in the housing markets. Almost all of this happened on the Clinton watch, but to be fair, we have to blame Greenspan for this, not Clinton. The Greenspan time constants were always too long to be truly effective. He always hesitated and acted late.

The Republican tax cuts helped to stimulate the economy, but to be fair, we have to temper our enthusiasm about how much a $500 trickle-down tax cut really helps to bolster consumer confidence. Rampant increases in housing appraisals, combined with cash-out-equity refinancing (and equity theft) during periods of excessive liquidity have done more to boost consumer spending than any other measurable metric. The great boost to our economy (from the consumer perspective) has been financed by borrowing against inflated home values. The average consumer has taken on a lifetime of debt to finance today's spending habits. Its a truly ugly way to survive, and to ingore this mode of consumer finance tends to allow economists to paint an overly rosy picture of the economy.

For these reasons, I would disagree that we live in the best economy ever. Personal savings rates are at an all time low, and consumer debt is at an all time high. This is BAD for the consumer, but it is very GOOD for the corporations that supply consumer goods. Whether or not anyone considers this to be the best economy of all time depends entirely upon which side of the fence they're sitting.

What about the fact that we have not suffered a single terrorist attack on our soil since the attacks of 9-11? Did anyone expect this would be the case on 9-12? Is this just coincidence too? Of course not!
...
Graduated from Yale and an MBA from Harvard Business School, licensed to fly jet fighter's.

Damn good points.

That is not correct, Exxon Mobile is the largest oil company in the world, quite a bit larger than the next largest oil company, which is probably Royal Dutch Shell, followed by BP. BP is a very large company, but it is not the largest oil company, and is very far from being a monopoly.

Who is defined as the "biggest" of the supermajors depends upon how how you define "biggest." You can rate them based on market capitalization, on per-annum barrel production, on annual profits, etc. The last time I crunched these numbers, the the "biggest" title could go to either XOM or BP, depending upon whether you defined "Biggest" in terms of market cap or produciton volume. Technically speaking, you might both be right on this one.

Consider that Exxon Mobile controls only about 3% of the world's petroleum reserve. If the largest oil company in the world controls only 3% of the reserves, how can the 3rd largest be considered a monopoly? The small percent of control Exxon Mobile has refutes the idea that the oil companies control the price of oil, none of them, nor all of them together are not a monopoly (all of them together could not be a monopoly anyway).

Another great point. The problem is that people who have adversarial opinions about oil companies often don't want to be confused with facts.

Playing the devils advocate on this one, the limit of their commodity control to 3% of the world's petroleum reserves may be a bit of a red herring as an anti-monopoly argument. Even though XOM only controls 3% of the world's proven reserves, they have huge market power (using the Sherman Act formula and definition) in the refining and distribution markets here in the USA. To the consumer, XOM, RD, and BP are effectively a tri-opoly. That's got to be one reason that so many people hate them. But I do have to agree that people who hate XOM, RD, and BP are displacing their aggression. They should be more concerned about the magnitude of the state and federal taxes on gasoline, and about the federalization/asset confiscation practices of dictators like Chavez in Venezuela. But that would require an attention span. <sigh>

[Satamax]

Originally Posted by hasserl

Dude, you're living in one of the best economies of all time. Bush inherited a failing economy from the previous administration, and very early on the economy suffered greatly from the terrorist attacks of 9-11; the bursting of the tech bubble, the near colapse of the airline industry, and yet unemployment in the states is down in the low 4% range, and the economy is buzzing along fantastically. Is this just coincidence? Of course not, it's mostly due to the fantastic tax cuts that the Bush admin was able to get passed.

What about the fact that we have not suffered a single terrorist attack on our soil since the attacks of 9-11? Did anyone expect this would be the case on 9-12? Is this just coincidence too? Of course not!

Well, Haserl, you're living in the country the most involved in debt in the world. And you say your economy is in good shape??? Your governement "commisioned" 9.11, since Carter funded talibans to fight against soviet union, and that led to al quaida attacks. You live in the biggest greenhouse gaz producing country and you don't give a shit! Well, i'm a offroader and don't like ecologists, but still, i'd rather run on vegie oil and care a litle than to be as irresponsible as you seem to act.

Bye.

Max.

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by Satamax

Well, Haserl, you're living in the country the most involved in debt in the world. And you say your economy is in good shape??? Your governement "commisioned" 9.11, since Carter funded talibans to fight against soviet union, and that led to al quaida attacks. You live in the biggest greenhouse gaz producing country and you don't give a shit! Well, i'm a offroader and don't like ecologists, but still, i'd rather run on vegie oil and care a litle than to be as irresponsible as you seem to act.

Bye.

Max.

That's quite harsh Max. Blaming America for the 9-11 attacks is blaming the victim for the acts of the criminal. I could list plenty of analogies for this, but that would be pointless. Your assertion is crude and offensive.

You make assumptions about what I don't give a shit about, and about my irresponsibilities. I find that also to be crude and offensive. If you have an argument to make go ahead and make it, but don't make ad hominem personal attacks against me. To do so shows an inability to fathom a reasonable argument, and the effect of those attacks destroys our ability to rationally discuss issues. If you want to discuss greenhouse gases that would be fine, but if your mind is already made up about global warming you may not like the information I would provide to that discussion. Regardless, please avoid the personal attacks so that we can discuss amps and other music topics with mutual respect.

[hasserl]

I would disagree that we live in the best economy ever

Ahh, but I didn't say it was the best ever, I said one of the best ever. Which I belive is true. Not that it couldn't be better, but that it is in remarkable condition, especially considering the negative forces against it that very easily could have resulted in an extended recession. I also think you underestimate the benefits of teh tax relief to business in this country, which results in increased benefits to us all, especially Federal revenues which have soared as a result of the improved economy.

[Satamax]

Originally Posted by hasserl

That's quite harsh Max. Blaming America for the 9-11 attacks is blaming the victim for the acts of the criminal. I could list plenty of analogies for this, but that would be pointless. Your assertion is crude and offensive.

You make assumptions about what I don't give a shit about, and about my irresponsibilities. I find that also to be crude and offensive. If you have an argument to make go ahead and make it, but don't make ad hominem personal attacks against me. To do so shows an inability to fathom a reasonable argument, and the effect of those attacks destroys our ability to rationally discuss issues. If you want to discuss greenhouse gases that would be fine, but if your mind is already made up about global warming you may not like the information I would provide to that discussion. Regardless, please avoid the personal attacks so that we can discuss amps and other music topics with mutual respect.

Well, Hasserl, sorry for being harsh, but there's one thing which is for sure, your country is the most involved in debt in the whole world, and you regard your economy as sound? http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

About global warming, we might agree that it's not as critical as we might all think, the planet warms and cools, and does this in periods, tho, human beings have an effect on it lately, no doubt about it. And it would be clever to cut our emisions. Remember that US is the biggest emiter of greenhouse gasses in the world so far, china becoming prominent. Well that sad, because your governement won't do anything about it, and also can't because they would criple your economy. But imho, it's a great shame. Global warming impedes with my job, as a chairlift atendant, the lack of snow makes me loose some money, so you'll understand my concerns with global warming.

That's all i say, as if you don't believe in it, do your own research. Remember i'm having hard time to argue in your language.

Bye.

Max.

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by Satamax

Well, Hasserl, sorry for being harsh, but there's one thing which is for sure, your country is the most involved in debt in the whole world, and you regard your economy as sound? http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

About global warming, we might agree that it's not as critical as we might all think, the planet warms and cools, and does this in periods, tho, human beings have an effect on it lately, no doubt about it. And it would be clever to cut our emisions. Remember that US is the biggest emiter of greenhouse gasses in the world so far, china becoming prominent. Well that sad, because your governement won't do anything about it, and also can't because they would criple your economy. But imho, it's a great shame. Global warming impedes with my job, as a chairlift atendant, the lack of snow makes me loose some money, so you'll understand my concerns with global warming.

That's all i say, as if you don't believe in it, do your own research. Remember i'm having hard time to argue in your language.

Bye.

Max.

Okay Max, we're cool.

As far as the debt goes, of course it is very important, but that is a different topic from the health of the economy, or what I mean by the level of economic activity. We are working, we have money to buy toys like Iphones, not to mention all the guitars and amps and musical toys we like to play with. In a bad economy with no jobs and no work we don't do these things. As I mentioned, the level of federal revenues is very healthy, that the feds then spend it all plus more is shameful, but that doesn't mean the economy is not healthy.

As for as the US the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, China has surpassed the US in production of CO2. That was a quiet little news story a couple of weeks ago. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/20/1996/

Have you considered the effects of forests on the global levels of CO2? And how the US has enormous levels of forested areas, much more so than Europe. The US having about 8% of the forest in the world, Europe have less than 2? China less than 2. In fact outside of the American Continent, Russia and Indonesia has the only significant levels of forest, and all the other countries in the world combined (including all of Europe & Africa and the Middle East and East) make up only 11% of the global forests. Europe has largely been deforested. The US has done much work to retain our forests, and through management I've heard there are more trees in this country now than when it was discovered by Columbus. That may or may not be true, but no doubt we work hard to manage and maintain our forests. Is it fair for Europe, which has largely decimated it's forests, to criticize the US regarding global CO2 levels? What is Europe doing to curb CO2 emissions, other than speaking negatively about the US?

Here's a nice article showing European rate of growth of greenhouse gas exceeded that of the US.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/n...ses/GHG2006-en

But I don't agree that there is no doubt that human beings have an effect on the warming and cooling cycles of the planet. If one really looks into the debate there is plenty of evidence to cause doubt. I tend to think this is more of a political control issue and less a scientific one.

[spiffpeters]

Actaully, Cheney's 'secret' energy policy group included the likes of Enron and big oil.

Bush says the surge is to provide the space or buffer the Iraqi government to get some business done and get on with the task of governing Iraq. He isn't kidding. He's dead serious.

That energy task force of Cheney's? Big oil didn't like the fact that Iraqi's oil reserves were closed to private industry. Their oil was nationalized. The surge is suppose to give the Iraq government time to resolve the oil revenue sharing program, which was designed by the US government. And big oil wants access to the second largest oil reserves in the world.

There's four factions fighting for oil revenues in Iraq. Shia, Sunni and Kurds are the three they talk about. They just don't bother to mention the fourth, Big Oil.

[Satamax]

Hasserl, just check this

Done by US Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ons_per_capita

[spiffpeters]

"As far as the debt goes, of course it is very important, but that is a different topic from the health of the economy, or what I mean by the level of economic activity."

As has been stated previously, consumer savings are at an all time low while consumer debt is at an all time high. The bulk of our economic activity is being funded by home equity theft. We can't continue cashing in the equity in our houses indefinitely. Eventually the housing market will regain normalcy and level out and correct itself. I don't know about the rest around here, but if I had to buy my house today, I'd be SOL. I don't know how we can expect young people fresh out of college with huge student loan debt to have enough capital to start up a family and buy a house. And even if they wait five or ten years before buying a house and starting a family, does anyone think that wages will keep up, much less catchup, will the housing market? Imagine housing costs ten years from now. If they continue to rise at present rate, many kids won't be able to buy a house. If the market corrects itself, as it likely will, college kids will be able to afford a house, but what happens to the folks that extracted the equity from their properties before the value declined? They'll get upside down on their mortgage and end up losing big time in the end. Not a very rosy picture either way.

One of the best economies of all time? Depends on who you are. Not for the average, middle class worker. May look like it, but something wicked this way comes. Baton down the hatches cause it's going to get rough.

[hasserl]

Max, check out this:

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/T...hange/02p.html

Anthropogenic sources of CO2 account for just 4-5% of all CO2, the other 95-96% occuring naturally.

North american forests provide much of the global CO2 sinks. The US generates much CO2, but also sinks much of it in our forests. Europe contributes to global CO2 but does not provide much of a CO2 sink to absorb what they generate. IMO that leaves Europeans that belive anthropogenic CO2 generation as a problem with a moral dilemna. The US can absorb the CO2 it generates, Europe cannot. When pointing a finger at someone else you have three more pointing right back at yourself.

And EU generation of CO2 is increasing, not decreasing. So who is righteuous to blame someone else?

But this is all conjecture anyway. Tell me, is global temperature increase the result of increased CO2 levels, or the cause?

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by spiffpeters

"As far as the debt goes, of course it is very important, but that is a different topic from the health of the economy, or what I mean by the level of economic activity."

As has been stated previously, consumer savings are at an all time low while consumer debt is at an all time high. The bulk of our economic activity is being funded by home equity theft. We can't continue cashing in the equity in our houses indefinitely. Eventually the housing market will regain normalcy and level out and correct itself. I don't know about the rest around here, but if I had to buy my house today, I'd be SOL. I don't know how we can expect young people fresh out of college with huge student loan debt to have enough capital to start up a family. Something going to have to give.

The public dept and personal consumer debt are two very different things, though I suppose both are behavior driven. So is shirking personal responsibility and placing blame for one's personal problem onto others.

As for the housing market, it will eventually correct itself. The worse thing one could do is try to influence it with regulations, which tend to have unintended consequences worse than the issue they were intended to deal with. Much of the correction is already underway, it's a buyers market these days.