To be more specific, their supposed ignorance allows them to allow the (paying) lobbyists to write the bills in the manner that most benefits our purported representatives true constituency - the corporations and their owners who aren't satisfied with the majority of the pie, but who want the whole damn thing.
Some time ago the topic was our (US's) winner-take-all election laws, and its tendency to produce only two parties and similar candidates. I took issue with someone who thought that proportional election laws would solve all that. Now that you've posted this comment I'm gratified that perhaps more people agree with my way of thinking that I had first thought.
You'd think the almighty creator of the heavens and the earth and everything that resides therein would be able to, y'know, get his book of rules right first time round. Wouldn't you?
I had certain rules I made my children follow when they were three years old. I don't make them follow those rules now. As a parent I'm quite inconsistent, aren't I?
You know, if I ever decide to commit a crime, then I'm going to author a little bit of music and record it and play it during the crime. I understand the copyright is automatic, but I'll go ahead and put a notice on the CD. That way if I'm ever caught, I'll sue the folks with the security cameras for violating my copyrights. If I can get them to destroy the evidence then I'll have a better chance of getting off, and if not then I'll at least have the proceeds from the infringement suit.
On further thought, I'll do the same if I ever run for office, but perhaps I repeat myself. That way if my opponents ever try to use what I've said against me then I'll be able to force them to quit. I'll also post slogans with copyrights so they'll have to destroy the video as well as the audio.
For instance (pulling hypothetical example out of my butt, no personal expertise in fracking fluid chemistry) a mineral-oil based carrier vs. a diesel-fuel carrier. I mean, the mechanical properties of the fracking fluid seem like the most important, right?
The main component by volume of fraccing fluid is water.
However, any fissures in the rock between the two will cause contamination. And that is something the frackers can never protect against since they have no idea where those fissures occur.
What keeps crude oil from causing contamination through those same fissures?
You should look up what the word competition means.
I do appreciate your concern for my education, but I should probably mention that I've made quite a study of economics over the years. At this point I'm fairly certain that I know the generally accepted meaning of "competition" as the word is used by economists. Now, the statement you made implies that "competition" means "eliminate competitors." However, economists hold that entirely different services can compete with each other. For example, if a young couple decide that they can either go to a movie or go out to dinner, but they can't afford to do both, then economists would claim that theatres compete with restaurants. If we accept your definition of competition, then we would have to believe that the entire reason for the existence of theatres is to eliminate restaurants. Nothing could be further from the truth. Or, if you would like another example, economists hold that competition can exist even in the absence of competitors. I alluded to that in my earlier post to you. When barriers to entry are low, then goods and services providers compete with "potential" competitors. In other words, providers have to keep their prices low enough to prevent other providers from coming into existence. Now, if, as you would have it, competition means eliminating competitors then there would be no need for a provider to compete in the absence of competitors for there would be no competitors to eliminate. Therefore, there must be some other meaning to the word.
What you WISH it means is not actually what it means.
I have no dog in this fight. I don't wish it to mean anything other that what others claim it means. My only interest in the meaning of competition is to communicate ideas about economics. Well, that and I do like to go out and buy goods and services from time to time.
Or, maybe you love monopolies?
I feel a deep and, I'm sure, abiding sense of gratitude to you for the gift you've just provided to me. I should mention that in addition to studying economics I've also made a study of logic. I consider the above to be a nearly pure example of the circumstantial version of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy.
Well, I was certainly attempting to do so. Thank you for responding as you did. In a less humorous vein, the entire time I was making my post I was cognizant of Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming. I think it's in the third volume where he makes the claim that there exist no random sequences, provided you accept a number of seemingly reasonable requirements for random sequences to have. The conclusion he suggests is that we really don't know what random sequences are. Or, as aintnostranger has implied, the sequence 9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9 is exactly as likely to occur as any other "random" sequence of numbers.
So, the whole point of "competition" is to eliminate competitors.
No, the point of competition is to sell your goods or services for less than it costs you to supply them. Eliminating a competitor can make that easier to do, because it's one way to increase your price without increasing your costs. However, there's a limit to how effective that can be so long as barriers to entry are low. You must keep your price low enough that it wouldn't profit a potential competitor to enter your market.
Of course they can. Here: 7, 3. I've just given you two *totally* random numbers.
Nope. And I can prove it. Both of your numbers were between 0 and 9, inclusive. Counting only integers that makes ten possibilities. Now, between 10 and 999, inclusive, there are nine hundred ninety possibilities. Since random numbers are equally likely that means that it is ninety-nine times more likely for a random number to be between 10 and 999, inclusive, than it is for them to be between 0 and 9, inclusive. Successive probabilities multiply, so the likelihood that two numbers chosen at random will be between 10 and 999 inclusive are 8991 times more likely than that they will be between 0 and 9, inclusive. The only reasonable conclusion is that 7 and 3 are not random numbers.
~Loyal
p.s. I think if you search the literature you'll find that 3 is, in fact, a random number. Therefore you problem lies with the 7.
It's 89% water and contains only a chemical found in your stomach naturally! That can't possibly hurt you!
You misread what I wrote. If you re-read my post you'll see that a common fracturing fluid might contain 89% water, 11% sand, and a trace amount of guar. The water is usually pumped out of a pond somewhere and, thus, is non-potable. Similarly, the guar is not prepared with human consumption in mind, so the precautions taken in the food industry in the United States are not observed. Also, I'm not in the habit of drinking sand slurries. However, if you combine potable water with a trace amount of food-stuffs guar I would be happy to drink it, providing you buy me a beer chaser. Heck! For enough money I would be willing to drink a glass with the sand.
I've used hydrochloric acid, it's far from ho-hum.
I agree completely. Of course, had I been responding to a post of yours I wouldn't have identified it. Mr. Coward went to some effort to detail all of the names of sodium hydroxide and how it was used. As a favor to him I mentioned the most likely way he may have come into contact with hydrochloric acid. For completeness I should have also mentioned muriatic acid and it's use in the construction industry.
Hydrochloric acid is not ho-hum stuff. It eats holes in rocks. Big ones. On the other hand, it's not used in fracturing jobs. As I mentioned in my post, hydrochloric acid is used in acidizing jobs. To my recollection, it's not used in fracturing jobs.
"Chemicals" do not describe WHAT they actually use. Includes Sodium Hydroxide or Caustic Soda. Drain cleaner like Draino or Lye as it was formerly called. They are dissolving matter to create more passages. This is besides the fracking debate. Asked why, the industry used "chemicals" and not the true names of the agents, they said to hide their 'formula' contents.
The most abundant chemical used in fracing is water. This is the same water that your waiter serves you with your meal. It's not unusual for frac fluid to be 89% water by mass. I have been on a job that didn't use water. It used oil. When oil is used it's commonly lease oil. That means that oil was produced from the well, mixed into a fracturing fluid, and then pumped back into the well. However, the use of oil as a frac fluid is quite rare. The vast majority of frac jobs use water.
The second most abundant chemical used in fracing is sand. This is the same sand that you lie on while enjoying a day at the beach. I have personally mixed a frac fluid that was 73% sand. However, it's much too difficult to mix and pump at that concentration, so all frac jobs will be performed at a lower concentration of sand. There are substitutes that are sometimes used in place of sand. One such substitute has been tungsten carbide. However, the use of tungsten carbide in frac fluids is rare. Sand is much less expensive, so it's used in the vast majority of fracturing jobs. It's not uncommon to use a resin-coated sand in the last portion of the fracturing job. Coating the sand in resin helps keep it in the fracture so that it isn't produced with the oil.
The third most abundant chemical used in fracing is guar. This is the same chemical that your waiter serves in your salad dressing. It turns water into a thin gel. Gelled water is used in fracturing fluid because sand doesn't tend to settle out in gel as quickly as it settles out in water.
Those three chemicals are all that's necessary for many fracturing jobs. There are other chemicals that may be used. For example, sometimes a crosslinker is used to make the gel really thick. Crosslinkers can be toxic. However, any other chemical used will be used in low concentrations. If for no other reason, then to reduce costs. You can imagine how inexpensive water can be. Similarly, you can imagine how inexpensive sand can be. Guar can be expensive, but fortunately for the fracturing companies, very little is needed.
If sodium hydroxide is used, it's used to raise the pH. It's not used to create passages. If passages are desired, then they are created using hydrochloric acid. This is the same acid that occurs naturally in your stomach. Jobs that create passages in this manner are called acidizing jobs. It would not be usual to have a fracturing job and an acidizing job at the same time. The passages created by acid don't tend to collapse back down upon themselves. The passage created by hydraulic pressure does tend to collapse back down upon itself, so sand is pumped into the passage to keep the passage open for when the hydraulic pressure is removed.
The reason the industry uses the term "chemicals" IS to hide the formula. There is intense competition between the companies that provide fracturing services. The actual chemicals used is considered to be a trade secret. Therefore, as long as the fracturing companies continue to hide the true name then they are protected by law. If they were to reveal that name, then anyone would be able to provide the same service and that would drive the price they could charge downward. Of course, it's an open secret that water and sand are used. It's also an open secret that guar is used, but even so it's still used under trademarked names. Why? What reason do you think they have for concealing the true name of their agents?
While, strictly speaking, that's true, it's close enough to the truth as to make little or no difference. There is a periodic prize that's awarded at the same time the Nobel prizes are awarded. This particular prize is given for achievements in economics, and the decision as to whom to award the gift to is made by the same people who award the Nobel prizes. It's called The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Your statement is little more than an exercise in pedantics.
That reminds me of the Swedish Drill. In it, a prisoner was told he was going to be executed next week, but he wouldn't know the day he was to be executed. "Ah!" he said, "then you can't execute me at all! For if I wake up on Saturday then I'll know I'll be executed on that day, and you said I wouldn't. But then if I wake up on Friday, then I'll know you won't execute me on Saturday, so you can't execute me on Friday either. But then if I wake up on Thursday the same conditions apply. That means that I can't be executed on any day whatsoever!" The headsman thought and thought about it. Then on Thursday he executed the prisoner, surprising him completely.
I tell you what, you count up to the Photoshop program, and then I'll see that copyright gets removed from it.
Try seeing what happens when you don't pay rent on an apartment.
Normally, after about two months I would be evicted. I'm not seeing the analogy, though, with US government debt. There isn't anything I can evict the federal government from. Maybe kick the soldiers out of an army base, and rent it to someone more solvent? I suppose everyone could rebel and overthrow the government, but that would really be stretching the analogy.
The value of treasury bond holdings would collapse in a mass selloff. This would affect every financial institution in the United States, including those fuzzy little Credit Unions. Many, many institutions would require FDIC/NCUA intervention, and the funds aren't really large enough to deal with a problem on that scale.
Why did you go with financial holdings? Forty-seven percent of government debt is held by the Federal Reserve System and other branches of the US government. The next largest chunk is held by foreigners and international owners. The two chunks after that are mutual funds and state governments. In fact, it looks like depository institutions hold only about 1% of US debt.
The U.S. would have to either print money (thus devaluing the dollar on the world market, leading to shortages), or let the banks and credit unions fail, leading to many people losing their savings.
Print money! Why would they have to print money? They would have all that additional money they weren't paying on their debt! And if the government were defaulting on their T-Bill and T-Bond obligations why wouldn't they default on their FDIC and NCUA obligations!
So, instead the government *must* make its debt payments.
Other governments have defaulted on their debt. It makes their debt more risky, which raises their costs of borrowing. Why would the US be any different?
Taxes can't be raised quickly without impacting production, and in fact cutting taxes is basically the government's only tool to increase production.
How about international trade agreements? How about removal of trade restrictions? How about the elimination of costly regulations?
This means that an increase in interest rates actually affects the existing debt, not just new debt, so interest payments would increase quickly.
Current yield on 5-year treasuries is 1.11%. It doesn't seem to be a problem.
Eventually, we won't be able to afford market rates and we'll have to find a lender willing to let us borrow at a more reasonable rate.
Do you know how the US government borrows money? They make periodic auctions of newly created bills and bonds, and invite certain organizations to bid. Congress just recently had a debt ceiling controversy. In that controversy the Republicans were refusing to allow the government to create and sell more debt. That is the opposite problem from the one you describe. What you're saying is that the government will create debt, and not all of it will be sold. That has happened from time to time, but it's not the current worry. The current worry is that people are willing to buy the debt, and some factions in government don't want to sell it.
Eventually, we won't be able to afford market rates and we'll have to find a lender willing to let us borrow at a more reasonable rate. In exchange for the loan they'll demand we make certain changes (similar to a bankruptcy court ordering your possessions be sold). These changes will be painful, but not as painful as those required to immediately balance the budget and pay off bonds as they come due.
You're predicting that a default will force the US to go to the International Monetary fund, who will force the US to implement austerity measures? Are you taking bets as to that happening within the next five years?
To be complete, the name is Loyal Opposition. If you're unfamiliar with it, it often means the party in congress not currently in power. For example, in the Senate today the loyal opposition are the Republicans and in the House of Representatives they are the Democrats. I suppose the Independents are loyal opposition as well. It generally means people who are willing to tell you when they think you are wrong.
And who's in whose pockets is clear to all.
Well, not precisely all. For example, I don't know whose pockets you think I'm in. Would you be so kind as to tell me that? Also, tell me what I've said that makes you think so. And while you're at it you might say whether you think I'm in favour of The Federal Reserve System or opposed.
Doesn't change the fact that the FED is neither federal nor a reserve.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that I'm a shill for the Federal Reserve System, and therefore you can ignore any claim I make about it. On the one hand I'm astonished that anyone would think that a claim that The Federal Reserve System is federal is in any way a support of that system. On the other hand, I'm hugely indebted to you for a nearly pure example of the tu quoque fallacy. I've been searching for one for years, and until now I've never found one that was quite right.
Another surprise for me is your implication that I've ever claimed that The Federal Reserve System is a reserve. Would you point me to something I might have said to give you that opinion?
Finally, would you at least admit that The Federal Reserve System is a system? Or are you like Mary McCarthy, when speaking of Lilllian Hellman, when she said, "Every word she writes is a lie, including and and the."
Wow, you did a good job copying from the opening paragraph of the wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] for the Federal Reserve
May I assume you have some reason for believing Wikipedia wrong in this instance? Of my six points, which are wrong? What evidence do you have that they are wrong? What's the source of that evidence?
but it is still a mostly privately owned and operated bank.
No, it's not. The decisions are made by government appointed bureaucrats. The goals (low inflation and high employment) where chosen by government. The vast majority of profit goes to government. It's a mostly governmental organization with some private aspects.
Also, the Congress can only oversee it. If it wanted, "it's decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government".
That's because the congress wanted to create a bureaucracy that would be relatively uninfluenced by political decisions. In particular, they didn't want whatever party was in power nine months before the election season starts to crash the economy if the "wrong" party was in power, or rev it up if the "right" one was. If congress wants to be able to ratify the FRS's decisions or give that power to the president then all they have to do is rewrite that portion of the Federal Reserve Act.
This is why all money is loaned at interest TO the government.
So why do they then turn around and give 94% of that interest back to the treasury? How about if we agree that the FRS is 6% private and 94% federal?
It is a private bank that is out to do EXACTLY what other private banks do: make money off it's customers.
Why should it make money off its customers if it must turn around and give it back to the treasury? And what can it do with the 6% that it gets to keep? It can't give itself raises. The government sets their salaries. It can't pay stockholders. The FRS has no stock. About the only thing they can do with that money is pay for nice desks and offices.
It is legal tender, provided by the Federal Reserve (which isn't "federal" at all, it's a private bank).
Actually, the Federal Reserve System is federal. Let me contrast it with the company where I work so you can see the differences. 1. The FRS was created in 1913 by an act of congress. The place I work was incorporated in Delaware as a Delaware company. 2. The FRS is lead by the Chairman of the Board of Governers who is appointed by the President of the United States. The place where I work is lead by the Chief Executive Officer, who is appointed by the Board of Directors. 3. The FRS is run by the Board of Governors who are appointed by the President of the United States. The place where I work is run by the Board of Directors, who are selected by shareholders. 4. Congress has oversight of the FRS. The place where I work, not so much. 5. The government sets the salaries of the highest-paid individuals of the FRS. The place where I work, not so much. 6. By law, the FRS has to give any profit over 6% to the United States Treasury. In 2010, the FRS made a profit of $82 Billion. They paid the Treasury $79 Billion. The place where I work, not so much.
Are you honestly comparing 2 days with 10 years of handpicked "highest recent inflations"?
Yes. It's a talent of mine. Why, in recent days I've compared Bush to Hitler, a mountain to a molehill, Tea Party Activists to Holocaust victims, apples to oranges, and Milla Jovovitch to Christina Hendricks.
They can do what they want as long as I can get back what it says on my balance. Are you seriously this [redacted]ing stupid?
Hmmm, how to put this...let's say TechLA put 1000 BitCoin into the BitCoin bank on Friday. Then on Sunday he withdrew 1000 BitCoin from the BitCoin bank. In other words, the BitCoin bank payed out what it said on the balance. TechLA's complaint is that he could only buy about half the stuff with that 1000 BitCoins on Sunday as he could on Friday. A similar thing can happen with other currencies. Take the United States dollar as example. One of the highest recent inflations occurred in the late 70's and early-to-mid 80's. So, suppose you put 1000 USD into a checking account in 1977. Let's ignore the Negotiable Order of Withdrawal stuff for a bit, and any service charges. Then in 1987 you could withdraw 1000 USD. However, in 1987 you could only buy about half of the stuff (actually about 0.518) with 1000 USD as you could with 1000 USD in 1977. According to some theories of economics, that change was partially caused by the change in the amount of money; and, in the United States, the amount of money is controlled by the Federal Reserve System in coordination with the various banks in the country.
So I would have to say, no, MareLooke isn't quite as stupid as you might have thought.
Actually, extraordinary claims require the same proof as any other type of claim. The reason I know that is because the scientific method says: 1. Characterize. 2. Hypothesize. 3. Predict. 4. Experiment. If extraordinary claims required extraordinary proof, then it would say: 1. Characterize. 2. Hypothesize. 3. Predict. 4. Experiment. 5. Reject experiment if claim is extraordinary. Or, to put it another way, would it be acceptable if Pope Benedict got to determine whether a claim was extraordinary or not? If only your own priests get to determine whether a claim is extraordinary or not, then you are the one with the religion.
Slashdot Mirror
To be more specific, their supposed ignorance allows them to allow the (paying) lobbyists to write the bills in the manner that most benefits our purported representatives true constituency - the corporations and their owners who aren't satisfied with the majority of the pie, but who want the whole damn thing.
Some time ago the topic was our (US's) winner-take-all election laws, and its tendency to produce only two parties and similar candidates. I took issue with someone who thought that proportional election laws would solve all that. Now that you've posted this comment I'm gratified that perhaps more people agree with my way of thinking that I had first thought.
~Loyal
You'd think the almighty creator of the heavens and the earth and everything that resides therein would be able to, y'know, get his book of rules right first time round. Wouldn't you?
I had certain rules I made my children follow when they were three years old. I don't make them follow those rules now. As a parent I'm quite inconsistent, aren't I?
~Loyal
You know, if I ever decide to commit a crime, then I'm going to author a little bit of music and record it and play it during the crime. I understand the copyright is automatic, but I'll go ahead and put a notice on the CD. That way if I'm ever caught, I'll sue the folks with the security cameras for violating my copyrights. If I can get them to destroy the evidence then I'll have a better chance of getting off, and if not then I'll at least have the proceeds from the infringement suit.
On further thought, I'll do the same if I ever run for office, but perhaps I repeat myself. That way if my opponents ever try to use what I've said against me then I'll be able to force them to quit. I'll also post slogans with copyrights so they'll have to destroy the video as well as the audio.
~Loyal
(c) Opposition 2011
For instance (pulling hypothetical example out of my butt, no personal expertise in fracking fluid chemistry) a mineral-oil based carrier vs. a diesel-fuel carrier. I mean, the mechanical properties of the fracking fluid seem like the most important, right?
The main component by volume of fraccing fluid is water.
~Loyal
However, any fissures in the rock between the two will cause contamination. And that is something the frackers can never protect against since they have no idea where those fissures occur.
What keeps crude oil from causing contamination through those same fissures?
~Loyal
Yes, but will it be enough, and soon enough to protect the water supply?
Soon enough? Fracturing has been done in the United States since 1947.
~Loyal
I'm pretty sure they aren't fracking with 1000 Island dressing.
Strangely enough, a major component of fraccing fluids is guar, which is also a major component of most salad dressings.
~Loyal
You can't prove a negative.
Why should I believe that you can't prove a negative?
~Loyal
You should look up what the word competition means.
I do appreciate your concern for my education, but I should probably mention that I've made quite a study of economics over the years. At this point I'm fairly certain that I know the generally accepted meaning of "competition" as the word is used by economists. Now, the statement you made implies that "competition" means "eliminate competitors." However, economists hold that entirely different services can compete with each other. For example, if a young couple decide that they can either go to a movie or go out to dinner, but they can't afford to do both, then economists would claim that theatres compete with restaurants. If we accept your definition of competition, then we would have to believe that the entire reason for the existence of theatres is to eliminate restaurants. Nothing could be further from the truth. Or, if you would like another example, economists hold that competition can exist even in the absence of competitors. I alluded to that in my earlier post to you. When barriers to entry are low, then goods and services providers compete with "potential" competitors. In other words, providers have to keep their prices low enough to prevent other providers from coming into existence. Now, if, as you would have it, competition means eliminating competitors then there would be no need for a provider to compete in the absence of competitors for there would be no competitors to eliminate. Therefore, there must be some other meaning to the word.
What you WISH it means is not actually what it means.
I have no dog in this fight. I don't wish it to mean anything other that what others claim it means. My only interest in the meaning of competition is to communicate ideas about economics. Well, that and I do like to go out and buy goods and services from time to time.
Or, maybe you love monopolies?
I feel a deep and, I'm sure, abiding sense of gratitude to you for the gift you've just provided to me. I should mention that in addition to studying economics I've also made a study of logic. I consider the above to be a nearly pure example of the circumstantial version of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy.
~Loyal
It's rather more likely he was joking.
Well, I was certainly attempting to do so. Thank you for responding as you did. In a less humorous vein, the entire time I was making my post I was cognizant of Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming. I think it's in the third volume where he makes the claim that there exist no random sequences, provided you accept a number of seemingly reasonable requirements for random sequences to have. The conclusion he suggests is that we really don't know what random sequences are. Or, as aintnostranger has implied, the sequence 9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9 is exactly as likely to occur as any other "random" sequence of numbers.
~Loyal
So, the whole point of "competition" is to eliminate competitors.
No, the point of competition is to sell your goods or services for less than it costs you to supply them. Eliminating a competitor can make that easier to do, because it's one way to increase your price without increasing your costs. However, there's a limit to how effective that can be so long as barriers to entry are low. You must keep your price low enough that it wouldn't profit a potential competitor to enter your market.
~Loyal
Of course they can. Here: 7, 3. I've just given you two *totally* random numbers.
Nope. And I can prove it. Both of your numbers were between 0 and 9, inclusive. Counting only integers that makes ten possibilities. Now, between 10 and 999, inclusive, there are nine hundred ninety possibilities. Since random numbers are equally likely that means that it is ninety-nine times more likely for a random number to be between 10 and 999, inclusive, than it is for them to be between 0 and 9, inclusive. Successive probabilities multiply, so the likelihood that two numbers chosen at random will be between 10 and 999 inclusive are 8991 times more likely than that they will be between 0 and 9, inclusive. The only reasonable conclusion is that 7 and 3 are not random numbers.
~Loyal
p.s. I think if you search the literature you'll find that 3 is, in fact, a random number. Therefore you problem lies with the 7.
It's 89% water and contains only a chemical found in your stomach naturally! That can't possibly hurt you!
You misread what I wrote. If you re-read my post you'll see that a common fracturing fluid might contain 89% water, 11% sand, and a trace amount of guar. The water is usually pumped out of a pond somewhere and, thus, is non-potable. Similarly, the guar is not prepared with human consumption in mind, so the precautions taken in the food industry in the United States are not observed. Also, I'm not in the habit of drinking sand slurries. However, if you combine potable water with a trace amount of food-stuffs guar I would be happy to drink it, providing you buy me a beer chaser. Heck! For enough money I would be willing to drink a glass with the sand.
~Loyal
I've used hydrochloric acid, it's far from ho-hum.
I agree completely. Of course, had I been responding to a post of yours I wouldn't have identified it. Mr. Coward went to some effort to detail all of the names of sodium hydroxide and how it was used. As a favor to him I mentioned the most likely way he may have come into contact with hydrochloric acid. For completeness I should have also mentioned muriatic acid and it's use in the construction industry.
Hydrochloric acid is not ho-hum stuff. It eats holes in rocks. Big ones. On the other hand, it's not used in fracturing jobs. As I mentioned in my post, hydrochloric acid is used in acidizing jobs. To my recollection, it's not used in fracturing jobs.
~Loyal
"Chemicals" do not describe WHAT they actually use. Includes Sodium Hydroxide or Caustic Soda.
Drain cleaner like Draino or Lye as it was formerly called. They are dissolving matter to create more passages.
This is besides the fracking debate. Asked why, the industry used "chemicals" and not the true names of the agents,
they said to hide their 'formula' contents.
The most abundant chemical used in fracing is water. This is the same water that your waiter serves you with your meal. It's not unusual for frac fluid to be 89% water by mass. I have been on a job that didn't use water. It used oil. When oil is used it's commonly lease oil. That means that oil was produced from the well, mixed into a fracturing fluid, and then pumped back into the well. However, the use of oil as a frac fluid is quite rare. The vast majority of frac jobs use water.
The second most abundant chemical used in fracing is sand. This is the same sand that you lie on while enjoying a day at the beach. I have personally mixed a frac fluid that was 73% sand. However, it's much too difficult to mix and pump at that concentration, so all frac jobs will be performed at a lower concentration of sand. There are substitutes that are sometimes used in place of sand. One such substitute has been tungsten carbide. However, the use of tungsten carbide in frac fluids is rare. Sand is much less expensive, so it's used in the vast majority of fracturing jobs. It's not uncommon to use a resin-coated sand in the last portion of the fracturing job. Coating the sand in resin helps keep it in the fracture so that it isn't produced with the oil.
The third most abundant chemical used in fracing is guar. This is the same chemical that your waiter serves in your salad dressing. It turns water into a thin gel. Gelled water is used in fracturing fluid because sand doesn't tend to settle out in gel as quickly as it settles out in water.
Those three chemicals are all that's necessary for many fracturing jobs. There are other chemicals that may be used. For example, sometimes a crosslinker is used to make the gel really thick. Crosslinkers can be toxic. However, any other chemical used will be used in low concentrations. If for no other reason, then to reduce costs. You can imagine how inexpensive water can be. Similarly, you can imagine how inexpensive sand can be. Guar can be expensive, but fortunately for the fracturing companies, very little is needed.
If sodium hydroxide is used, it's used to raise the pH. It's not used to create passages. If passages are desired, then they are created using hydrochloric acid. This is the same acid that occurs naturally in your stomach. Jobs that create passages in this manner are called acidizing jobs. It would not be usual to have a fracturing job and an acidizing job at the same time. The passages created by acid don't tend to collapse back down upon themselves. The passage created by hydraulic pressure does tend to collapse back down upon itself, so sand is pumped into the passage to keep the passage open for when the hydraulic pressure is removed.
The reason the industry uses the term "chemicals" IS to hide the formula. There is intense competition between the companies that provide fracturing services. The actual chemicals used is considered to be a trade secret. Therefore, as long as the fracturing companies continue to hide the true name then they are protected by law. If they were to reveal that name, then anyone would be able to provide the same service and that would drive the price they could charge downward. Of course, it's an open secret that water and sand are used. It's also an open secret that guar is used, but even so it's still used under trademarked names. Why? What reason do you think they have for concealing the true name of their agents?
~Loyal
There are no Nobel prizes for...economics.
While, strictly speaking, that's true, it's close enough to the truth as to make little or no difference. There is a periodic prize that's awarded at the same time the Nobel prizes are awarded. This particular prize is given for achievements in economics, and the decision as to whom to award the gift to is made by the same people who award the Nobel prizes. It's called The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Your statement is little more than an exercise in pedantics.
~Loyal
That reminds me of the Swedish Drill. In it, a prisoner was told he was going to be executed next week, but he wouldn't know the day he was to be executed. "Ah!" he said, "then you can't execute me at all! For if I wake up on Saturday then I'll know I'll be executed on that day, and you said I wouldn't. But then if I wake up on Friday, then I'll know you won't execute me on Saturday, so you can't execute me on Friday either. But then if I wake up on Thursday the same conditions apply. That means that I can't be executed on any day whatsoever!" The headsman thought and thought about it. Then on Thursday he executed the prisoner, surprising him completely.
I tell you what, you count up to the Photoshop program, and then I'll see that copyright gets removed from it.
~Loyal
Try seeing what happens when you don't pay rent on an apartment.
Normally, after about two months I would be evicted. I'm not seeing the analogy, though, with US government debt. There isn't anything I can evict the federal government from. Maybe kick the soldiers out of an army base, and rent it to someone more solvent? I suppose everyone could rebel and overthrow the government, but that would really be stretching the analogy.
The value of treasury bond holdings would collapse in a mass selloff. This would affect every financial institution in the United States, including those fuzzy little Credit Unions. Many, many institutions would require FDIC/NCUA intervention, and the funds aren't really large enough to deal with a problem on that scale.
Why did you go with financial holdings? Forty-seven percent of government debt is held by the Federal Reserve System and other branches of the US government. The next largest chunk is held by foreigners and international owners. The two chunks after that are mutual funds and state governments. In fact, it looks like depository institutions hold only about 1% of US debt.
The U.S. would have to either print money (thus devaluing the dollar on the world market, leading to shortages), or let the banks and credit unions fail, leading to many people losing their savings.
Print money! Why would they have to print money? They would have all that additional money they weren't paying on their debt! And if the government were defaulting on their T-Bill and T-Bond obligations why wouldn't they default on their FDIC and NCUA obligations!
So, instead the government *must* make its debt payments.
Other governments have defaulted on their debt. It makes their debt more risky, which raises their costs of borrowing. Why would the US be any different?
Taxes can't be raised quickly without impacting production, and in fact cutting taxes is basically the government's only tool to increase production.
How about international trade agreements? How about removal of trade restrictions? How about the elimination of costly regulations?
This means that an increase in interest rates actually affects the existing debt, not just new debt, so interest payments would increase quickly.
Current yield on 5-year treasuries is 1.11%. It doesn't seem to be a problem.
Eventually, we won't be able to afford market rates and we'll have to find a lender willing to let us borrow at a more reasonable rate.
Do you know how the US government borrows money? They make periodic auctions of newly created bills and bonds, and invite certain organizations to bid. Congress just recently had a debt ceiling controversy. In that controversy the Republicans were refusing to allow the government to create and sell more debt. That is the opposite problem from the one you describe. What you're saying is that the government will create debt, and not all of it will be sold. That has happened from time to time, but it's not the current worry. The current worry is that people are willing to buy the debt, and some factions in government don't want to sell it.
Eventually, we won't be able to afford market rates and we'll have to find a lender willing to let us borrow at a more reasonable rate. In exchange for the loan they'll demand we make certain changes (similar to a bankruptcy court ordering your possessions be sold). These changes will be painful, but not as painful as those required to immediately balance the budget and pay off bonds as they come due.
You're predicting that a default will force the US to go to the International Monetary fund, who will force the US to implement austerity measures? Are you taking bets as to that happening within the next five years?
~Loyal
You're "Loyal" alright.
To be complete, the name is Loyal Opposition. If you're unfamiliar with it, it often means the party in congress not currently in power. For example, in the Senate today the loyal opposition are the Republicans and in the House of Representatives they are the Democrats. I suppose the Independents are loyal opposition as well. It generally means people who are willing to tell you when they think you are wrong.
And who's in whose pockets is clear to all.
Well, not precisely all. For example, I don't know whose pockets you think I'm in. Would you be so kind as to tell me that? Also, tell me what I've said that makes you think so. And while you're at it you might say whether you think I'm in favour of The Federal Reserve System or opposed.
Doesn't change the fact that the FED is neither federal nor a reserve.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that I'm a shill for the Federal Reserve System, and therefore you can ignore any claim I make about it. On the one hand I'm astonished that anyone would think that a claim that The Federal Reserve System is federal is in any way a support of that system. On the other hand, I'm hugely indebted to you for a nearly pure example of the tu quoque fallacy. I've been searching for one for years, and until now I've never found one that was quite right.
Another surprise for me is your implication that I've ever claimed that The Federal Reserve System is a reserve. Would you point me to something I might have said to give you that opinion?
Finally, would you at least admit that The Federal Reserve System is a system? Or are you like Mary McCarthy, when speaking of Lilllian Hellman, when she said, "Every word she writes is a lie, including and and the."
~Loyal
Wow, you did a good job copying from the opening paragraph of the wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] for the Federal Reserve
May I assume you have some reason for believing Wikipedia wrong in this instance? Of my six points, which are wrong? What evidence do you have that they are wrong? What's the source of that evidence?
but it is still a mostly privately owned and operated bank.
No, it's not. The decisions are made by government appointed bureaucrats. The goals (low inflation and high employment) where chosen by government. The vast majority of profit goes to government. It's a mostly governmental organization with some private aspects.
Also, the Congress can only oversee it. If it wanted, "it's decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government".
That's because the congress wanted to create a bureaucracy that would be relatively uninfluenced by political decisions. In particular, they didn't want whatever party was in power nine months before the election season starts to crash the economy if the "wrong" party was in power, or rev it up if the "right" one was. If congress wants to be able to ratify the FRS's decisions or give that power to the president then all they have to do is rewrite that portion of the Federal Reserve Act.
This is why all money is loaned at interest TO the government.
So why do they then turn around and give 94% of that interest back to the treasury? How about if we agree that the FRS is 6% private and 94% federal?
It is a private bank that is out to do EXACTLY what other private banks do: make money off it's customers.
Why should it make money off its customers if it must turn around and give it back to the treasury? And what can it do with the 6% that it gets to keep? It can't give itself raises. The government sets their salaries. It can't pay stockholders. The FRS has no stock. About the only thing they can do with that money is pay for nice desks and offices.
~Loyal
It is legal tender, provided by the Federal Reserve (which isn't "federal" at all, it's a private bank).
Actually, the Federal Reserve System is federal. Let me contrast it with the company where I work so you can see the differences.
1. The FRS was created in 1913 by an act of congress. The place I work was incorporated in Delaware as a Delaware company.
2. The FRS is lead by the Chairman of the Board of Governers who is appointed by the President of the United States. The place where I work is lead by the Chief Executive Officer, who is appointed by the Board of Directors.
3. The FRS is run by the Board of Governors who are appointed by the President of the United States. The place where I work is run by the Board of Directors, who are selected by shareholders.
4. Congress has oversight of the FRS. The place where I work, not so much.
5. The government sets the salaries of the highest-paid individuals of the FRS. The place where I work, not so much.
6. By law, the FRS has to give any profit over 6% to the United States Treasury. In 2010, the FRS made a profit of $82 Billion. They paid the Treasury $79 Billion. The place where I work, not so much.
~Loyal
Are you honestly comparing 2 days with 10 years of handpicked "highest recent inflations"?
Yes. It's a talent of mine. Why, in recent days I've compared Bush to Hitler, a mountain to a molehill, Tea Party Activists to Holocaust victims, apples to oranges, and Milla Jovovitch to Christina Hendricks.
~Loyal
Answer Key: greater, greater, greater, greater, lesser.
They can do what they want as long as I can get back what it says on my balance. Are you seriously this [redacted]ing stupid?
Hmmm, how to put this...let's say TechLA put 1000 BitCoin into the BitCoin bank on Friday. Then on Sunday he withdrew 1000 BitCoin from the BitCoin bank. In other words, the BitCoin bank payed out what it said on the balance. TechLA's complaint is that he could only buy about half the stuff with that 1000 BitCoins on Sunday as he could on Friday. A similar thing can happen with other currencies. Take the United States dollar as example. One of the highest recent inflations occurred in the late 70's and early-to-mid 80's. So, suppose you put 1000 USD into a checking account in 1977. Let's ignore the Negotiable Order of Withdrawal stuff for a bit, and any service charges. Then in 1987 you could withdraw 1000 USD. However, in 1987 you could only buy about half of the stuff (actually about 0.518) with 1000 USD as you could with 1000 USD in 1977. According to some theories of economics, that change was partially caused by the change in the amount of money; and, in the United States, the amount of money is controlled by the Federal Reserve System in coordination with the various banks in the country.
So I would have to say, no, MareLooke isn't quite as stupid as you might have thought.
~Loyal
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Actually, extraordinary claims require the same proof as any other type of claim. The reason I know that is because the scientific method says: 1. Characterize. 2. Hypothesize. 3. Predict. 4. Experiment. If extraordinary claims required extraordinary proof, then it would say: 1. Characterize. 2. Hypothesize. 3. Predict. 4. Experiment. 5. Reject experiment if claim is extraordinary. Or, to put it another way, would it be acceptable if Pope Benedict got to determine whether a claim was extraordinary or not? If only your own priests get to determine whether a claim is extraordinary or not, then you are the one with the religion.
~Loyal
Darn! I just figured it out.
~Loyal