Slashdot Mirror

OK, so that did not go over too well.

I was kicking back up something an old professor told me... about people's primary motivations being fear and greed.

Marketing will either play to your fear ( especially insurance companies, and religions selling "fire insurance" ) or greed ( especially investment advisors and real estate brokers ) .

I indicated it was in me too. Yes, I invested a lot of my resources in oil a couple of years ago, as I was convinced "peak oil" was here, and I thought few other people were aware of it. I felt with my understanding of M. King Hubbert's work with the Logistic equation and the stints I served in the oil patch where I had observed depleting oilfields first hand, I felt I had a better understanding of the gravity of the situation. I am very aware of the Logistic Equation and its implications. The exponential rate of our reproduction... 6.5 billion of us now... and energy demand now exceeding 500 exajoules/year , most coming from ancient sunlight stored in fossil fuels.

I honestly thought there was hell to pay. Soon. and I would be able to profit from it.

That's not what happened. I lost my investments in solar power and alternative energy research. Now the talking heads are saying we have more oil than we know what to do with, we are going to become a net exporter, go buy your big car, and the party is going to go on. While everything inside of me says this is just marketing lies similar to those in the oilpatch by some to sell a well which struck a gas pocket to ignorant investors.

Meanwhile, I have family back in farming areas who tell me their wells no longer give good water. They tell me their water reeks of oil.

Now, in my limited knowledge of subsurface structures, I can just imagine fracturing the barriers that have been in place for eons separating water and oil-bearing strata. I can see some getting rich. Others having their water messed up.

How many drops of oil in the water tank make the whole tank undrinkable?

We studied this phenomena in economics..... its called "Tragedy of the Commons".

I was watching this in action last weekend as the local education board was meeting again trying to get more taxes passed as the ruptured economy caused by Bernake's hiking the federal funds rate after the government had put all sorts of incentives in place for poor people to invest their life savings in debt ( aka "Community Reinvestment Act - which forced banks to make subprime loans - then allowed banks to pawn off these toxic financial instruments onto investors ).

They just haven't got the message yet. A lot of us are losing their homes. A lot of us can no longer afford restaurant meals. A lot of us can no longer afford people in the school system which are not actively teaching a class. We can't solve this with yet more taxes. Yet, I see these people given their government-given power to lay and collect tax insulating them from the burden their wastefulness places on everyone else.

I wish we were all innocent artists - like the children the Bible refers to. But it doesn't quite work that way. Many make a fine living from gaming the system. And others work very hard to survive.

I did not think the Fed would hike rates after "helping" all those low income people get into homes with subprime adjustable rate mortgages, making all those people they had "helped" lose not only their homes, their life savings, and what little credit rating they had. They did.

I am watching the way this whole affair plays out and it makes me sick.

-The American manufacturing base is declining.

Source? Everything I've seen shows record industrial output prior to the recent economic downturn. What indication do you have of a reversal in this long-term trend?

-High school graduations and the overall literacy is down the tubes.

Once again, the data that I could find contradicts your claim. Why do you think any recent spike in dropouts is anything other than a temporary aberration in the larger trend?

-The Baby Boomers are about to retire.

That was certainly the case a few months ago, but the stock market crash took care of that problem. The evaporation of so much wealth has pushed out retirement for a lot of boomers.

-The 50+ trillion National Debt (by 2020) needs to be paid, or at least serviced, which means much higher taxes (and much more job loss)

First of all, remember that even with low inflation $50 billion in 2020 is likely to be worth about $38 billion in today's dollars. Second, I find it hard to believe that people will continue to loan the US that much cheap money. If we run up that much debt, it will almost certainly cause high inflation. Cash would be a very bad position to be in with high inflation, as would bonds. If you have the stomach for commodities, they would probably weather inflation pretty well. So where would you suggest putting money in a high-inflation situation? Personally, I'm going for real estate pretty soon. But like I said, equities seem fairly well-priced right now, too.

And what do you think Obama can do?

Not much - the fed has pretty much blown its wad. The best I can hope for is that he spends all of this debt money on infrastructure, so that we at least get something lasting out of the political stunt called "stimulus".

Do you think his voodoo reaganomics will spend us out of trouble?

Reaganomics was usually applied to "trickle-down" theory, which isn't really what Obama is proposing. Nevertheless, any stimulus isn't going to change the broad direction of the economy, but it might take the edge off. The government is a lot bigger than it was during the depression, so don't try to compare government action then and now.

If I were you, I'd convert your stocks into gold and get the hell out of here.

Gold is way too erratic for me. If I had been a really smart guy and seen the stock crash coming in late september, I might have transferred to gold. Unfortunately, the price of gold crashed along with the stock market (after an initial spike). Now, it has since recovered - so if I held on to it I'd be fine, but no better off than if I'd stayed in cash. And who knows what it will do tomorrow? It's varied by roughly 15-20% in just the last month or so.

Starving dudes with loose nukes, that's what it's coming to.

Now you've lost me.

We all gotta wonder where YOU work? Where has it not already returned to that?

here

The Euro has never been 1 dollar to 1.5 euros.. It started out at $ 1.15 to 1 euro in 1999 ... In Late 2000 through most of 2002 it was the majority of in the upper .80's and .90's Mostly in the 90's(cents to the euro).. so average case scenario at this time was say... .87 cents for 1 Euro.. So 1.5 Euros would cost $1.30... at the euros absolute lowest .8525 cents to the Euro (Oct 2000) 1.5 Euros would cost you $1.28

Here's a chart.. http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/fedstl/exuseu+2
It's been pretty strong since 2003

Wow, so, according to you, it's impossible to live without cars and the fuel that powers them. Trains, buses, working remotely, all this must be alien to you.

Well, that's why we're fucked; yours is the general attitude. At least you admit to it.

I'm assuming you are American. Unfortunately for you, the cheap gas is no longer local to you and hasn't been for a while.

There are at least two main reasons.

The first of which requires an understanding of what the most important resources are, and where they are located. I'll give you a hint - it's oil. To a lesser extent, other, less convenient energy sources.

Here is a map of the oil:
http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/mainpages/oilmap.ht ml

Here is a map of the all the US bases in the world:
http://respectsacredland.org/no-us-bases/

Yes, the USA has a finger in almost everywhere, and especially in those places with valuable resources. The US is nothing at all like the fictional non-expansionist America of Sid Meier's Civilization game. There is no power in history that has controlled as much of the globe as has America, and maybe the percentage as well. Even back then, the Romans never controlled China, or Russia for that matter. The world is bigger now and the US controls more of it. Compare:
http://www.unrv.com/roman-map-for-sale.php

Of course, it gets sold to Americans (and the world) that they are being "world's policeman", a good natured bobby who wanders around making sure that the kids play nice. And they are so nice, they supposedly do it all for no fee, no taxation required.

Of course, in the real world taxation is the basis of all empires, and the US empire is no different. The way the tax works is harder to understand, but no less effective.

In the modern world, everyone needs oil. In order to buy that oil, it must be purchased in US dollars. If an oil producing nation decides to sell in another currency, the US will invade. Saddam tried to sell in Euros in 2000 and paid the penalty. And because France and Germany would have benefited, they opposed Gulf War 2 and hence the US responded with all the "cheese eating surrender monkey" propaganda that was produced around that time.

How does the tax work? Consider that the number of US dollars has been increasing all the time, and that the cost to print them is effectively zero. If the US runs out of money, it can just print more. Or, at least, the FRB can. But who owns the FRB is something you can google yourself.

And the US _has_ been printing more dollars for a long time now. When the US does that, the rest of the world picks up the tab by making more of what US citizens are willing to buy. Here is a graph of the US dollars in circulation, the M3.
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/charter.exe/fedst l/m3sl

So that's the first reason why the US is "policing" Iraq. To maintain a monopoly on the currency oil is traded for, and hence, the foundation of their empire.

The second reason is for Israel. Saddam was considered a major threat to Israel. Consider the goals of PNAC, what they wrote before the war, the members, and where they are seated in the Bush regime.
http://zfacts.com/p/775.html

The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending Sept. 16 were in Puerto Rico (3.7 percent), Alaska (2.5), Michigan (2.5), New Jersey (2.5), Pennsylvania (2.4), Arkansas (2.2), Connecticut (2.0), Massachusetts (2.0), Oregon (2.0), and Rhode Island (2.0).

Here are the links again right from my browser history: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/07/28 /crime_stats040728.html http://www.statcan.ca/english/Subjects/Labour/LFS/ lfs-en.htm http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/r u http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/gdp_country_de sc.php http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/1999/06/think_01.h tml

Sorry, but I disagree. $2495 in 1984 dollars isn't really "designed for the masses". Yes, a better price than earlier machines, but a far worse price than later machines. But it's a price-point-in-time. To argue that this is the "first" just doesn't make sense.

I could argue that e-Machines or Packard Bell, or some white-box manufacturer was "the first" to make it affordable for the masses, because they beat that price by a factor of 10 or more in real dollars.

Basically, you have two variables there - price and functionality. Unless your argument is that the definition of "inexpensive for the masses" is $2500 or less (in 1984 dollars), it just doesn't hold up. The Mac wasn't the first in functionality. And it wasn't reasonably priced for the masses (as compared to today's systems). $2495 in 1984 was about 3% of the price of an average HOUSE! A little steep for the average person, for a "disposable technology unit" that would clearly depreciate to scrap value in three years.

Would it surprise you to find that New England has about half the number of internet users as India?

Population of New England: 14,205,480 (2003)

Indian internet users: 18,500,000 (2004)

So, assuming 65-70% of New England population use the internet, New England has roughly 9 million internet users.

And Indian access is growing at a very resonable rate. I see no reason why it won't hit 50,000,000 by 2006.

Add to that the country's obsession with cricket, and it's understandable - imagine the fan bases of football, basketball, baseball and the WWE all following the same team and it will give you an idea of the scale of the following of the the Indian Cricket Team.

cLive ;-)

Hmmm. 1.5 trillion of the debt is held by the Social Security Trust Fund. If you look at the Debt Site you'll see that over 3 trillion is in by intragovernmental holdings. 4 trillion is held by the Public, of which 1.7 trillion is held by foreign investors.

Want to stop the Ponzi scheme? Stop the greatest one of all time, Social Security.

The unemployment rate in the UK is 4.8%, in the US it's 5.6% ( US, UK). Curse our third world-esque level of unemployment!

"Growing plants with the intent to use them as fuel is NOT economically viable."

Of course, most of the fuel we used until 1940 was grown as plants. And most of the plants were used as fuel. Remember that humans and other domesticated animals are extremely efficient energy consumers, and much of the physical work in the world is done by animals including humans. In fact, measured by events, (as opposed to joules), the majority of work is fueled by plants, and meat fueled by plants.My tweaks to your scenario, (not your "math", which I referred to sardonically, and apparently too archly :) really refer to the scale at which sea farming with more efficient photosynthesis in sugarcane can generate power.You're more right about *my* math than I am about yours - I really could use your proofreading whenever I post at 6AM after staying out all night celebrating the occult transformation of Friday the 13th into Valentine's Day :).

To do the math right, take the 5% efficiency of sugarcane-photosynthesis -> fuelcell-electricity, cut it in half for the hidden layer of sucrose -> ethanol. Multiply the resulting 2.5% efficiency by the actual average annual insolation of places like Dagget, CA: look at the 2-AXIS average year number, 9.4KWh/m2/day, which is about 400W average across the year. That's 10W:m^2 of sugarcane.Sounds like a pittance, but cover the "dead area" of the Gulf of Mexico (1.5M Km^2 *10W:m^2 = 15TW) with a 2/3% coverage of sugarcane rafts, floating patchwork over the lifeless sandy bottom, and you get 10TW. US imported energy of 26P BTU annually is 8.6TW, so a 3x3 array of these farms scattered around the US naval territory makes the US energy-independent. Of course, there are likely exotic aquatic plant species with greater photosynthetic efficiency already growing in that ecosystem which we could cultivate. We can invest the resulting savings (care to include $100G+:year in energy-security military budget?) developing solar space lasers to beam the vast solar energy to floating sea platforms.

Okay, Chicken Little, I'll bite -

One of the few interesting notions that the fields of economics has come up with is that when you allow countries to compete freely, and shift employment to areas in which they can be their most productive, EVERYBODY wins. International trade is not a zero-sum game, and growth in international trade has helped lift tens of millions of people out of absolute poverty over the last couple decades (see South Korea, India, China, and Japan before that).

Go look at a few decades worth of US unemployment data. You'd think we'd have unemployment rates of 25% or more if folks like you and Ross Perot (remember Nafta?) were right.

But you're wrong.

As jobs get moved overseas, new ones get created here all the time. The US economy is incredibly good at reallocating capital and labor away from poor performing areas to higher-growth ones. Venture capitalists are constantly on the hunt to fund promising new enterprises. Entrepreneurship is a field open to just about anybody with the motivation to make it happen.

The continuing drive for efficiency and excellence is a STRENGTH of the US economy, not its bane. Self-pitying excuse makers who want society to pay for their lack of initiative are a greater threat.

Well, it's not necessarily the poor getting poorer, but if you look at this chart of the umemployment rate, surely you can agree that someone is getting poorer.

Official Operating System Economic Impact Chart

See? Linux is bad for the economy.

;-)

jobless rates are at an all time high

I don't think so, o ye of short memory. Check here and you'll see that things have been much worse just in the last 30 years.

Of interest here would be the employment level and unemployment rate for Math and Computer Scientists. (This can be found under US Civilian Labor Force.) The latest employment level data, from 12/02 says that there were approximately 1.96 million people employed as math and computer scientists within the US. This is off from the high of 2.242 million in 8/00, but is still above any number in the history of recording this statistic before 11/99.

Then there's the bad news, the unemployment rate within this sector surged from 4.3% in 11/02 to 6.0% in 12/02.

And if that isn't bad enough, consider that the employment level was lower in 8/02 than in 12/02, but so was the unemployment level. That means that many new people joined the ranks of math and computer scientists in late '02, despite the allegedly bleak landscape of the high-tech sector we keep hearing about.

I mean, here we are in the second leg of the double dip recession

The economy grew at 4% last quarter. You do realize the '01 recesion was the shortest in 20 years right?

we've got at least 10 years of ever escalating budget deficits ahead

So? The absolute size of the defecit isn't important, it's the size of the defecit relative to the size of the economy. The current estimates are much smaller than the defecits of the past. Look at the bond market, ie the market where this debt will be traded. The yeild curve has hardly budged.

the main reasons that the unemployment rates are lower now are that a) a large number of people have given up, which takes them off the list

And you know this how? And how do you know that this is different than in the past?

a larger number of people are employed at lower paying service jobs that require both spouses to be fully employed to make a percentage of the money that one alone used to make

Wrong median income has been consistently rising.

Oh, and the ruling Party is planning on giving the richest 1% of the population more money

Actually they are letting them keep more of their own money.

Did I mention the upcoming war, which will further deplete the economy

Deplete it of what? And what will be the benefit of a larger supply of oil?

Look I'm sorry if your career dot bombed, being poor sucks, I know, but try to keep some perspective.

While the Coalition against Insurance Fraud claims that 10% of all auto and home insurance claims are fraudulent ($79 billion per year they say), my quick review of the IRS data on the issue just doesn't seem to support that claim.

Considering the fact that in the State of Utah, there were an astounding 61 cases of insurance fraud in 1999 alone! WOW! 61 cases of fraud in one year coming from a state with 2,129,836 people. That's less than .01% of the population commiting insurance fraud.

Fraudulent zodiacs. The Linux Pimp