Currencies - paper, coin, gold backed, what-have-you - are simply placeholders in a barter system.
It used to be that I would trade a chicken for a few gallons of milk. I would take one of my chickens over to the rancher who would give me my milk, and I'd be on my way.
Well, essentially the same thing is happening now. I make widgets, and I am given a "barter paper" worth, say, one chicken. Now I go to the grocery store. He accepts my barter paper and gives me a gallon of milk. The grocer then trades that barter paper for the chicken to the rancher to get more milk.
Money has no value until it is spent; it is a placeholder only. Ultimately until it is used to consumer durable goods at the final user it simply exists to represent potential.
Gold, paper, whatever. Doesn't matter.
Zimbabwe, you say? The issue there is that the Government, via insane regulations, destroyed the economy. Suddenly you could NOT afford that gallon of milk, and the population was getting pissed.
So the Government decided to just start printing a bunch of barter papers without any real ground in what they represented. Pretty quickly the ranchers bumped the price of milk, and as they say we were off to the races.
As long as a currency system is tied to fundamental economic generation of durable goods (and services required to produce those goods), you can avoid the Zimbabwe meltdown.
The second you decouple from economic activity, though, is the second the barter paper becomes worthless - which are real, which are, effectively, counterfeit?
Quite obvious the author has zero CAD experience. Try doing a 2D or 3D drawing without a mouse (where you use the wheel to zoom in and out) and you'll find the definition of aggravation.
You always had to pay extra for XP Pro on home machines. Vista Basic is the same as XP Home; you pay to upgrade to Vista Business (XP Pro's replacement) and you get both Vista Business and XP Pro.
Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent, between fiscal
year 2003 and fiscal year 2006... Had revenues
grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal
receipts would have increased by only $373 billion. The other $252 billion of the
actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth
So the tax cuts stimulated enough increase in federal revenues to outstrip the growth of the GDP by 40%. Lower taxes increased growth in revenue.
That's a pretty bad idea. If a business owner earns $10,000 but then turns around and reinvests all of it, US tax law says* there's no net taxable profit.
Actually, with depreciation if that owner buys capital assets of his business, he used to only get to claim $2,000 of that expense this year, and $2,000 each following year. Meaning he'd pay taxes on $8,000 this first year even though it was spent.
To me, that is insane. I am not a CPA either, but I have been a small business owner for 12 years now, and deal with this crap monthly.
ASIDE: if you want to kickstart the US - and hence the world's - economy, do two things: first cut the corporate tax rate to the world average of 24%, down from the current second-only-to-Japan 35%. And two, full depreciation on all assets, any value, no limit, in the year of the expenditure.
Right now any time I need to buy a capital asset, I have to meet with my bookkeeper and CPA (and sometimes lawyer, too) to figure out what the implications will be in terms of profit and loss for each year, what can I carry forward, etc. Cut that out - if I spend a dollar on the business, then I get to claim that expense when I spend it. Not spread it over 5+ years.
.
For the cannibalism, not quite that extreme but basically fortelling massive starvation and hundreds of millions of deaths because we're overpopulated: The Population Bomb by Paul Erlich.
It certainly doesn't help the anthropogenic global warming adherents that Erlich is also a vocal supporter of their position, given he so obviously blew the whole overpopulation thing...
Funny, you could always write off the purchase work vehicles. The rule that changed was that instead of taking those write-offs over 5 years, you could do it in one.
.
You do know what write-off means, right? It means you can claim the expense as a business expense, so you purchase it with pre-tax dollars. It's not like you get it free, or get a dollar for dollar tax credit; at best, you maybe save 35%, tops (if a corporation; if an LLC or sole-prop then you probably saved 15-20%).
And of course you could only write off what you actually SPENT in that year on the vehicle, meaning if you made payments for 5 years, you still had a 5 year payment plan. It was only if you bought it in one year could you deduct the expense in one lump sum.
Seems to me to be a much better way to do things - if a business pays $100,000 for business equipment, I'm all for them being able to claim the entire $100,000 amount as an expense in one year (decreasing their net income), rather than forcing them to spread the expense out over 5 or 7 tax years.
If that's forcing people to buy a Hummer, I'd like to meet those people. They still had to have the $100,000 up front to purchase it...
Rather, the war was about having an excuse to drive up the price of oil, which benefits... all of the oil companies. Who runs the oil companies? Mostly friends of Bush and his cronies.
Put another way, for every $1.00 that ExxonMobil made in profit, the Government made $2.50.
And who owns ExxonMobil? Less than 1% of ExxonMobil is owned by insiders (managment). Over 99% of ExxonMobil is owned by individual investors, mutual funds, and retirement funds. That $40 billion in profit they made last year? $39.6+ billion belongs to the stockholders. And ExxonMobil pays you a dividend, and you can sell their stock to get your cash back. You probably own ExxonMobil if you're invested in a mutual fund.
I know its oh-so-progressive to attack Big Oil because of their record profits (which come from their record sales volumes); even Congress likes to do it. But the real beneficiary - at least financially - is the Government.
Just remember next time you're filling up, probably $1.00 to $1.25 of each gallon you buy is going to the Government. The oil company selling you the gas is making around 10% - Government is making 25%.
Oh, and instability in the Middle East? We invaded in 2003. By 2006 Iraq had really settled down. But the price of oil has tripled since then, and gas has doubled. As Iraq and instability is decreasing, costs are increasing. I thought the new Democrat Congress was going to lower our gas prices - that's what Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D - CA) promised, and that's what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D - NV) promised.
It's not tension over the Middle East that's causing the increase in oil - it's that worldwide production has not kept up with demand. And fundamentally it is because of our reduced production, here in the US. We now pump only 40% of our own oil.
You do know that we have approximately two TRILLION barrels of oil in the US that is currently locked up by that same Congress. That same Congress, who's leaders promised to lower the price of gas back in 2006, who have presided on a doubling of oil and gas prices, won't let us access the world's largest oil reserves.
Put those reserves in perspective. At a daily consumption rate of 20 million barrels of oil, that is (2 trillion / 20 million) 100,000 days of consumption available. That is 273 YEARS of consumption. The US would have enough oil for nearly the next three centuries - longer than the US has existed as a nation - if Congress would let us access it.
We have literally more oil in the US - available to produce for under $50 per barrel, than the entire Middle East's proven reserves. Oil costs in the US could be cut by 65% - gas would be down under $1.40 per gallon if Congress was serious about fuel and energy costs.
Who's manipulating the market to keep their profits high? Well, the Government seems to get most of the profit, and they're responsible for locking up the biggest deposits in the world. I think the real racketeers and obscene profit takers are plainly obvious. It's the ones asking the questions at those mock trials of the oil execs, not those answering.
I'm sorry, I was born directly into the position I have./sarc
.
How can you **assume** that I didn't work multiple part-time jobs, worked full time and took a full load through college, and worked my way up? Maybe I just decided that if I wanted better opportunities then I was the one to take advantage of them.
What is stopping you from getting a better education, or relocating to an area where there are more jobs? What is stopping you from spending 10 years accumulating a little each month so you can have a down payment on a house? What is stopping you from learning new skills and technologies so you can expand your career options?
Because I've done the 2 and 3 jobs at a time deal. I've lived in 3 bedrooms with 7 guys. I've done the poor thing - born into poverty, raised in it. But I decided enough was enough, and after seeing that few would even grab the power and success that was available for them, and even fewer would try to stop you... I just did it.
If you're having problems, chances are it's not some invisible force trying to hold you down. It's yourself.
You don't like population density? Here's a clue - DON'T LIVE IN SAN FRANCISCO. No jobs available where you live? Here's a clue - MOVE. Finding a lot of your skills being obsoleted? Here's a clue - GO BACK TO SCHOOL.
It's ultimately your responsibility to improve your own situation. No one is "trapped" in a locale or position, any more than you are "forced" to speak Greek.
So you choose to be a victim, "trapped" in places to live. Let me guess - you're a coder or IT guy, right?
.
Well, you can get a house for a LOT less up here in Seattle, where we're leading the nation in high tech job creation. Houses around me (15 minutes north of Seattle) are selling for $320,000, and you get 2100 square feet, 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, and a quarter of an acre of land.
Or there's the research triangle in Raleigh-Durham, tons of high tech and IT jobs, and a lot more affordable to live.
Houston and Austin are adding people - IT people - like crazy. Lots of jobs, and low cost of living.
There's also contract coding/IT management, remote. I know plenty of people who do that, live in small communities and work for Fortune 50 companies. They make $50-55K per year, but live in small towns where that buys a nice house, a nice car, and plenty of toys. Quality of life is more than just a paycheck.
What you're trapped by is your refusal to accept that you CAN'T have everything you want. That perhaps you can earn a little less - but have much more at the end of the day - by moving to another locale.
You don't have socioeconomic sovreignty because you choose not to exercise it. You are the only thing holding you back in your success, unless you believe there is some black force out there specifically keeping YOU down.
Why do I have it? Because one day I decided to not go out and seek that next full-time job; I decided I was worth more than that, and that I would work for the highest bidder. I became a contractor, a gun for hire. And I take the power I need to get the job done. If I am restricted from taking it, I leave. It's not worth the hassle. But I have yet to find a client unwilling to cede that which is taken.
I make it a point not to take full-time contracts, nor long-term contracts. It gives me the freedom to walk from any job at any time, without worry. I know it, and my clients know it. Economic freedom - not being dependent on any given entity for my paycheck - is the ultimate empowerment.
Yes, I ruffle feathers, but at the end of the day the job gets done, the client is satisfied with the work, and ultimately my "boss" - my report - is happy because I took the initiative and as a result would have taken the blame.
But no, rather that seek to improve your position in life, you prefer to be a victim and rant about overpopulation - when in fact you can go a half-day North to an entire county in your state with fewer than 5 people per square MILE.
Why stick in your job? Are there too many others doing the same thing where you live? If so, move to somewhere where your skills are unique and you command the salary and self-determination you desire. Work for yourself, not for someone else.
What is to stop you from seeking alternative income in the same field you work right NOW, but in a different location? What is the worst that happens? You fail. You have to move back to SF, and get another job like you have now. In other words, you're no worse off than you are right now.
Realistically, you'd probably succeed if you worked at it. No one is holding you back but yourself. How do you know it won't work until you try?
You choose to live with local density; so be it. But don't try to use that as justification that the world in general is overpopulated because the numbers just don't back you up.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was assuming we already kept the power generation here in the US, since we wouldn't need that amount of land or resources for farming or population. So we'd need the extra 700 reactors for the rest of the people coming in. Although from your numbers it it looks like it's about 1000 reactors - thanks, updated numbers noted!
.
But the fundamental point remains; we don't have a lack of resources to support the current world's population (or even twice that number); we have a problem of distribution of those resources.
I don't know about the rest of you, but 27 gal of water/day is only about 900 gal/month.
.
And billions of people live on less than that, today. And that was for a SINGLE river on the West Coast of the US. Add the rest of the rivers on the West Coast and we can up that to more than 100 gallons a day. That's only the rivers that outflow to the Pacific Ocean - none on the East Coast, or the Gulf Coast (including the Mississippi River).
The point is that we have plenty of resources in this world for 6.6 billion; even twice that. We don't have even distribution of the resources and that is STRICTLY a political problem. It's not because the wealthy nations are withholding the resources; it's because many of the shitholes around the world have thugs for dictators who insist on keeping it a shithole.
Finally to free trade. The poster is naive to believe free trade will solve the world's problems.
Show me where trade didn't help. What nation ever succeeded, what people ever advanced without trade?
Now show me a country that fell because it opened its markets and its economy, letting capitalism and free trade be the mantra of the day?
It (free trade) is currently weakening the US and may well cause our collapse.
The US has the biggest economy in the world, it's consistently growing. I bet you didn't realize that for all the wailing in the news, the US GDP will grow about 2.4% this year; that is MORE than the 2.2% of the Euro-zone. Yes, even with the weakened economy we're STILL growing faster than Europe.
And I bet you didn't know that we (the US) export more products today than ever before. Including manufactured products. The US is the number one manufacturer in the world. Did you realize that the US manufacturing output of 2007 was MORE than the entire GDP of China? Likewise with Germany - our manufacturing ALONE is greater than the GDP of Germany.
You want to know why our manufacturing base of employment is dwindling? Productivity. What used to take 100 people is now done with 10. You have automated systems and tools to make one worker produce a lot higher value, and with a lot less effort. Even as we're producing more value in manufactured goods, we're doing it with fewer people.
Go to an electronics assembly house in the US. You'll see a lot of automation. Now go to one in China - you'll see literally rows and rows of hundreds of people doing the job that 10 machines do.
S Korea recently banned US beef. Be real, it was protectionist. Maybe we could ban Kia's and Hyandai's.
South Korea is choosing to hurt its own citizens by restricting beef. Their own people must now pay more money, and it will prop up unsustainable businesses inside South Korea. Tariffs are the worst form of Government subsidies; not only do they support inefficient companies, but they create an artificial market for those companies.
I don't see how hurting our own population by eliminating a good source of low cost vehicles would be worthwhile. And it would also penalize the South Korean population, by reducing their exports.
China controls the exchange rate and thereby encourages exports at the expense of its own people being able to afford imports. Maybe we should ban chinese goods.
China controlling the exchange rate? It's fixed the maximum daily increase in value of the RMB versus the dollar, but it adjusts daily. The exchange rate has really paid off nicely over the last 15 months, as the RMB has dropped from 7.8 to the dollar to 6.8, and continues to drop. It's been a nice, free 15% return on money deposited in China. So much for controlling the exchange rate!
And the rise of the new middle class in China is BECAUSE of trade with that country. The reason the minimum wage has increased and is ENFORCED within China is because the country is becoming prosperous. And that is bringing about social change as well...
You want to better the lives of people? Open up trade. Restricting trade hurts all.
Whoa, I guess you didn't get the point of the example. The fact we could move everyone to Texas and provide for their basic needs on just 40% of the North American continent - leaving the other 6 continents, all the islands, and all the oceans free of any one or any man-made item - should show you we're not overpopulated.
.
You're a fool if you think we aren't overpopulated. I consider my home, the SF bay area, overpopulated. Do you have any idea what home prices are like here? As a result, many of the people who grow up here, live here, and work here will never own a home; do you want to guess at the personal economic implications of renting for a lifetime in said housing market? I think you need to review your position on political science.
Wow. Just, wow. So because you CHOOSE to live in the highest density city in California, that means the WORLD is overpopulated?
Here's a solution for you: move to Hayfork, California. You can get 1200 square feet, 3 bedrooms, 1.75 baths, and 1.77 acres for $96,000. And less than 14,000 people in the county. A population density under 5 people per square mile.
Have you ever been to the Eastern side of your State? Traveled through northern Nevada? Across Wyoming? You'll find we're not over-populated. There are literally miles and miles of miles and miles.
You CHOOSE to live in a densely populated region. If you wanted, you could live just 5 hours north by car, in Hayfork, and have all the space you need.
deposing Saddam and his party is like the United States' "apology" to world politics. More like a guilty ass-covering.
.
I see. So it's better that we just wring our hands and let our mess fester? I mean, I know that's the European way, but it has such a history of not working out - see the start of all the Middle East crap back in 1922 with its formation, thanks to the Euro. I mean, if you're going to blame Saddam strictly on the US, then we should be realistic and blame the entire Middle East problem on the European nations who created the nightmare with their arbitrary and capricious national boundaries.
Where di the above poster say that the war was about oil?
Right here: Then he stopped towing the US party line and decided he'd trade oil with those pesky Europeans instead of the USA. Next thing you know, Iraqs been invaded.
Essentially saying that because Saddam stopped selling oil to the US, we went to war. And the facts just don't support that since Iraq was a minor supplier to us, we were a minor client of theirs.
Look at those getting handed contracts for things like energy infrastructure in Iraq.
Guess what - drilling, transporting, and refining oil is a difficult, capital intensive business. Not many companies have a few dozen drill rigs laying around (at the cost of $20 million a rig). So it's no surprise that the biggest, best equipped and most experienced suppliers got the lion's share of the contracts.
Do you go with the brand-new start-up ISP for your mission critical installs or do you go with a well-established colo company?
I guess I wasn't clear enough... I've been to Haiti, 3 times, mainly in the Dessalines area. I know the people's feelings of fear. And that their main concern is just getting food for the day.
.
The point is that for most of the history of that nation, the rulers could care less if the people get food daily. In fact, they'd prefer them to get food just a couple times of week - easier to keep them under the gun. The poor will provide the reason to "shame" the Western nations into giving more money and aid, which the rulers (really the governors - they hold most of the power in Haiti) use to better their own lives.
If the government of Haiti actually cared for its people, you'd see aid not only reaching them, but the government welcoming companies and infrastructure and resources coming in to build up their economy. Offering jobs, housing, education.
But they don't. That's the last thing the ruling class wants. So they refuse to allow any economic development because that would mean a change to their own iron-fist control.
Are you so dense as to miss the already-posted about point that DISTRIBUTION [capacity / infrastructure / technology / etc] is a resource? And that in many parts of the world, it is not this way.
.
OK, so distribution is a resource. Seems that resource is ALSO fixed, since we can transport tons of food and supplies, and billions of dollars around the world in a matter of hours.
The distribution networks exist. The resources exist. The issue is that you don't understand that some people just do NOT want their country to improve. They like the shit hole, for while it is a shit hole, it is THEIR shit hole and they run it.
Sure, we screwed up in Iraq earlier; does that prohibit us from fixing the problem? If anything, we're being responsible unlike most of the old colonial powers from Europe - where are they in Southeast Asia, Africa, or the Middle East?
.
As far as oil goes, the majority of Iraqi oil was controlled by BP and Shell until 1972 when Iraq nationalized oil. And then cut deals with France and Russia.
Note that BP is British Petroleum, a UK company. And Shell is Royal Dutch Shell, a Dutch company. The US had precious little stake in Iraq before 1972 or afterwards. And even the recent grants of oil rights saw US companies getting about 30% of the production leases.
The US has never been a major consumer of oil from Iraq. Nor has the US been a major consumer of oil from the Middle East; rather, most of the oil goes to Europe or Asia. The US still produces 45% of its own oil, and buys more from Canada than it does from the Middle East. We buy more from Venezuela and Mexico than we do from the Middle East.
If you want to say the war was about oil, then it was about the US ensuring a stable supply of oil for the EU, not for itself.
Yes, because if a British conservative politician said it in the middle of the last century, it must be true today. Just because the first half of the quote is undeniably true, doesn't make the second part true as well.
The evidence of the USSR and China and Vietnam show it to be true. Communism simply doesn't work. Why else would the USSR have collapsed economically, or China and Vietnam moved quickly (and continuously) towards a more free-market economy?
Western economies in the early 21st century are more socialist than the USSR ever was in terms of wealth redistribution and state support of industry.
Excuse me? I thought the USSR had two levels of wealth: none or all. For the US, we have a large continuum from zero to massive. But here's the big difference: in the US you can actually MOVE along that continuum. In the USSR, once a peasant always a peasant.
State support of industry? Companies are created and fold all the time. You can invest, you can speculate, you can purchase stocks and you can choose to work and live where you want. Those are basic facts that did not exist in the USSR.
How many private companies existed in the USSR? How many companies relocated to or from the USSR? If you didn't like the price of bread, could you go and get a license and create your own bakery and bid on wheat for your bakery?
Now consider how many private companies exist in the the US, and how many move in and out of the US. How capital can transfer from region to region, nation to nation. How fortunes can be made or lost. How you are not guaranteed success, nor protected from failure.
To compare the US to the USSR is unfathomable. Although I will grant you that Obama would definitely like to move us towards a much more communistic economy with nationalization of another 30% of the GDP...
Who knows whether Leninism could work today - probably not without some radical rethinking - but green issues are making this kind of discussion more urgent, as capitalism is inherently wasteful of resources.
Completely false. The gains we've made in productivity - meaning more output for less input - are entirely from the capitalist economies. The USSR (now Russia) and China are ecological nightmares because of communism, not because of capitalism.
Look no further than your local farmer's market. Clearly the farmer wants to make a dollar, right? Why does the food he sells cost 2-3X as much as the produce you can buy at your local grocery store? Even when you have to ship grapes from Chile, or lettuce from California.
The key is productivity with large farm production. In agriculture, productivity comes from climate. It is counter-productive to try to grow grapes or tomatoes en-mass in Wisconsin or Michigan. Likewise it's counter-productive to try to grow redwood trees in Arizona, or mine coal in New Mexico.
Capitalism naturally seeks to gain the highest return on investment. That forces productivity increases; if I can turn out my widgets for 10% less than you can, or make them with features that allow me to charge 10% more than you, make a better return on investment. And that in turn will force you - if you're actually dependent upon the market, and not the Government to keep you alive - to refine your production techniques to compete and innovate.
Green approaches - with goods, production, distribution - are inherently wasteful! Consolidation and vertical integration of markets - the eventual result of capitalism and the antithesis of the modern green/communist movement - is inherently efficient. Meaning less waste, and more output.
Consider shipping a package from Los Angeles to New York. UPS can get it there tomorrow for $30. That is a huge, integrated company. Replace it with dozens of small local couriers spanning the nation. You'll pay 50X that price, and it'll take a week or more.
UPS is not losing money on that shipment; they can simply do it for less because of their s
Absolutely. If there ever was a country that cried out for a few well-placed 700 grain bullets, it is Zimbabwe. Mugabe and his thugs have completely destroyed that country and single-handedly caused the deaths of millions of people.
Well, if your ass is hairy, perhaps some Nair will help...
I think you completely missed the point: the GP stated we were overpopulated, when demonstrably that is false. If you can support every single person in such a small area as Texas, and with the resources of just 40% of one continent, then how are we overpopulated? I guess that sailed right over your head...
I wasn't advocating moving everyone to Texas, merely pointing out that there isn't a population problem. Provably so. Unless you want to show otherwise? Clearly we have the resources to support everyone.
And if that is the case, then the fact that millions die each month from starvation must be because of some reason other than there are too many of them.
Take a look at Zimbabwe. 25 years ago, they were a net exporter of food, and starvation within Zimbabwe was unheard of. Jobs were plentiful. Education was free and open to all, and the country was quite peaceful.
Now? Zimbabwe can't even grow 20% of its own food. It's economy has been so wrecked that inflation is running at 10 MILLION percent annually. Prices double daily. Unless your wages increase at a higher rate - which they don't - you simply cannot survive.
How to solve problems like that? Well, you can try trade. It works for most places that give it a try. Grow the pie, everyone wins. But many places don't want or care for free trade and you get Myanmar, and Zimbabwe, and Haiti, and North Korea.
You want to solve those problems? You're not going to do it by talking. The rulers of those countries don't give a shit about the people. They are simply cattle to be used; in fact, in Haiti and Zimbabwe, cattle are worth more than people. I know, I've been to both.
So how to you negotiate with those bastards? They have everything they want. They have absolute control, they have air conditioned palaces, plenty to eat, and people to shoot and flay for sport. What can we offer them other than a restriction in what they do now?
You want to be humanitarian to the suffering people in those countries? You won't do it by providing food and money - that will just go to the thug running the place, guaranteed. You can support an insurgency, but that will take time, cost thousands - if not millions - of lives, and may not work.
Or you simply send in a few teams and in the course of a day or two eliminate the thugs. Eliminate the threat. Set up a government, and work to rebuild the country. It's worked every time we've tried it: Philippines, Japan, Germany, Iraq. Yes, Iraq.
You say I should grow up? I have, and I've been to those places. Ever run the pharmacy of a medical clinic in the hills around Dessalines, Haiti? Build water pumps in Kadoma, Zimbabwe? Distribute US Constitutions while teaching English in Hamheung, North Korea? Give out copies of the Declaration of Independence while teaching English in Dawei, Myanmar?
What's your solution? Sitting down and talking? How did the talking go with Myanmar's rulers - refused to allow all US, and most foreign, aid after the typhoon which killed 500,000.
How about talking with Saddam? Twelve years and still hadn't gotten anywhere - even talked for 5 years AFTER the US made regime change the official US policy. Of course, it didn't help that "pacifists" arguing for more dialogue - the UN, the French, the Germans, and the Russians - were skimming billions of dollars off their suggested "humanitarian" actions.
Speak softly and carry a big stick only works if you actually are willing to use the stick. If you're too squeamish for that, then I suggest you move over and let the grown ups actually do what needs to happen.
Sure, it does. I think Sir Winston Churchill explained it best:
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Consider that the US is the most open economy in the world. And that the poor in the US are much better off than the middle class or rich in most of the world. And yes, I have been to most of the world (well, 94 countries so far).
While some people will gain hugely in a free market, even the bottom end gain when the economy grows - it's not a zero-sum game. And the free market inherently rewards those who grow it the most - the gain the most. But they also provide more income.
Capitalism - the US, the EU - won. Communism - the USSR and China - lost. The USSR shattered. China is moving towards a free-market economy. Communism as practiced by men simply doesn't work.
I don't know, how about penicillin? Aspirin? Antibiotics? Purpose-bred food sources? I think those may have a small impact on survival rates, which ultimately affect total population. It's not the advance and use of oil, it was the advance of technology which allowed the use of oil.
Not to mention that in my post I noted we could supply ALL our energy needs with nuclear. No need for crude oil for basically none of our energy requirements.
Oil was a cheap and high density power source; in the 1800s we used it because nuclear wasn't an option. Now we can use nuclear for most power needs, and use petroleum for whatever else (like plastics, high-density requirements like airplanes, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
It used to be that I would trade a chicken for a few gallons of milk. I would take one of my chickens over to the rancher who would give me my milk, and I'd be on my way.
Well, essentially the same thing is happening now. I make widgets, and I am given a "barter paper" worth, say, one chicken. Now I go to the grocery store. He accepts my barter paper and gives me a gallon of milk. The grocer then trades that barter paper for the chicken to the rancher to get more milk.
Money has no value until it is spent; it is a placeholder only. Ultimately until it is used to consumer durable goods at the final user it simply exists to represent potential.
Gold, paper, whatever. Doesn't matter.
Zimbabwe, you say? The issue there is that the Government, via insane regulations, destroyed the economy. Suddenly you could NOT afford that gallon of milk, and the population was getting pissed.
So the Government decided to just start printing a bunch of barter papers without any real ground in what they represented. Pretty quickly the ranchers bumped the price of milk, and as they say we were off to the races.
As long as a currency system is tied to fundamental economic generation of durable goods (and services required to produce those goods), you can avoid the Zimbabwe meltdown.
The second you decouple from economic activity, though, is the second the barter paper becomes worthless - which are real, which are, effectively, counterfeit?
Quite obvious the author has zero CAD experience. Try doing a 2D or 3D drawing without a mouse (where you use the wheel to zoom in and out) and you'll find the definition of aggravation.
You always had to pay extra for XP Pro on home machines. Vista Basic is the same as XP Home; you pay to upgrade to Vista Business (XP Pro's replacement) and you get both Vista Business and XP Pro.
That's bad enough but you forgot "while reducing Federal income by slashing taxes" at the end.
Except the facts are otherwise
:
Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006... Had revenues grown at the same rate as the overall economy between 2003 and 2006, federal receipts would have increased by only $373 billion. The other $252 billion of the actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth
So the tax cuts stimulated enough increase in federal revenues to outstrip the growth of the GDP by 40%. Lower taxes increased growth in revenue.
That's a pretty bad idea. If a business owner earns $10,000 but then turns around and reinvests all of it, US tax law says* there's no net taxable profit.
Actually, with depreciation if that owner buys capital assets of his business, he used to only get to claim $2,000 of that expense this year, and $2,000 each following year. Meaning he'd pay taxes on $8,000 this first year even though it was spent.
To me, that is insane. I am not a CPA either, but I have been a small business owner for 12 years now, and deal with this crap monthly.
ASIDE: if you want to kickstart the US - and hence the world's - economy, do two things: first cut the corporate tax rate to the world average of 24%, down from the current second-only-to-Japan 35%. And two, full depreciation on all assets, any value, no limit, in the year of the expenditure.
Right now any time I need to buy a capital asset, I have to meet with my bookkeeper and CPA (and sometimes lawyer, too) to figure out what the implications will be in terms of profit and loss for each year, what can I carry forward, etc. Cut that out - if I spend a dollar on the business, then I get to claim that expense when I spend it. Not spread it over 5+ years.
.
For the cannibalism, not quite that extreme but basically fortelling massive starvation and hundreds of millions of deaths because we're overpopulated: The Population Bomb by Paul Erlich.
It certainly doesn't help the anthropogenic global warming adherents that Erlich is also a vocal supporter of their position, given he so obviously blew the whole overpopulation thing...
.
You do know what write-off means, right? It means you can claim the expense as a business expense, so you purchase it with pre-tax dollars. It's not like you get it free, or get a dollar for dollar tax credit; at best, you maybe save 35%, tops (if a corporation; if an LLC or sole-prop then you probably saved 15-20%).
And of course you could only write off what you actually SPENT in that year on the vehicle, meaning if you made payments for 5 years, you still had a 5 year payment plan. It was only if you bought it in one year could you deduct the expense in one lump sum.
Seems to me to be a much better way to do things - if a business pays $100,000 for business equipment, I'm all for them being able to claim the entire $100,000 amount as an expense in one year (decreasing their net income), rather than forcing them to spread the expense out over 5 or 7 tax years.
If that's forcing people to buy a Hummer, I'd like to meet those people. They still had to have the $100,000 up front to purchase it...
And an even better thing that Apple is not in Austin. Otherwise I see a lot more Dell versus Apple deathmatches.
So you think your iPhone is tough... I think not...
Who makes the most profits on Big Oil? Take ExxonMobil for example. Of the $142 billion in pre-tax profit they made, $101 billion went to the Government.
Put another way, for every $1.00 that ExxonMobil made in profit, the Government made $2.50.
And who owns ExxonMobil? Less than 1% of ExxonMobil is owned by insiders (managment). Over 99% of ExxonMobil is owned by individual investors, mutual funds, and retirement funds. That $40 billion in profit they made last year? $39.6+ billion belongs to the stockholders. And ExxonMobil pays you a dividend, and you can sell their stock to get your cash back. You probably own ExxonMobil if you're invested in a mutual fund.
I know its oh-so-progressive to attack Big Oil because of their record profits (which come from their record sales volumes); even Congress likes to do it. But the real beneficiary - at least financially - is the Government.
Just remember next time you're filling up, probably $1.00 to $1.25 of each gallon you buy is going to the Government. The oil company selling you the gas is making around 10% - Government is making 25%.
Oh, and instability in the Middle East? We invaded in 2003. By 2006 Iraq had really settled down. But the price of oil has tripled since then, and gas has doubled. As Iraq and instability is decreasing, costs are increasing. I thought the new Democrat Congress was going to lower our gas prices - that's what Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D - CA) promised, and that's what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D - NV) promised.
It's not tension over the Middle East that's causing the increase in oil - it's that worldwide production has not kept up with demand. And fundamentally it is because of our reduced production, here in the US. We now pump only 40% of our own oil.
You do know that we have approximately two TRILLION barrels of oil in the US that is currently locked up by that same Congress. That same Congress, who's leaders promised to lower the price of gas back in 2006, who have presided on a doubling of oil and gas prices, won't let us access the world's largest oil reserves.
Put those reserves in perspective. At a daily consumption rate of 20 million barrels of oil, that is (2 trillion / 20 million) 100,000 days of consumption available. That is 273 YEARS of consumption. The US would have enough oil for nearly the next three centuries - longer than the US has existed as a nation - if Congress would let us access it.
We have literally more oil in the US - available to produce for under $50 per barrel, than the entire Middle East's proven reserves. Oil costs in the US could be cut by 65% - gas would be down under $1.40 per gallon if Congress was serious about fuel and energy costs.
Who's manipulating the market to keep their profits high? Well, the Government seems to get most of the profit, and they're responsible for locking up the biggest deposits in the world. I think the real racketeers and obscene profit takers are plainly obvious. It's the ones asking the questions at those mock trials of the oil execs, not those answering.
.
How can you **assume** that I didn't work multiple part-time jobs, worked full time and took a full load through college, and worked my way up? Maybe I just decided that if I wanted better opportunities then I was the one to take advantage of them.
What is stopping you from getting a better education, or relocating to an area where there are more jobs? What is stopping you from spending 10 years accumulating a little each month so you can have a down payment on a house? What is stopping you from learning new skills and technologies so you can expand your career options?
Because I've done the 2 and 3 jobs at a time deal. I've lived in 3 bedrooms with 7 guys. I've done the poor thing - born into poverty, raised in it. But I decided enough was enough, and after seeing that few would even grab the power and success that was available for them, and even fewer would try to stop you... I just did it.
If you're having problems, chances are it's not some invisible force trying to hold you down. It's yourself.
You don't like population density? Here's a clue - DON'T LIVE IN SAN FRANCISCO. No jobs available where you live? Here's a clue - MOVE. Finding a lot of your skills being obsoleted? Here's a clue - GO BACK TO SCHOOL.
It's ultimately your responsibility to improve your own situation. No one is "trapped" in a locale or position, any more than you are "forced" to speak Greek.
.
Well, you can get a house for a LOT less up here in Seattle, where we're leading the nation in high tech job creation. Houses around me (15 minutes north of Seattle) are selling for $320,000, and you get 2100 square feet, 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, and a quarter of an acre of land.
Or there's the research triangle in Raleigh-Durham, tons of high tech and IT jobs, and a lot more affordable to live.
Houston and Austin are adding people - IT people - like crazy. Lots of jobs, and low cost of living.
There's also contract coding/IT management, remote. I know plenty of people who do that, live in small communities and work for Fortune 50 companies. They make $50-55K per year, but live in small towns where that buys a nice house, a nice car, and plenty of toys. Quality of life is more than just a paycheck.
What you're trapped by is your refusal to accept that you CAN'T have everything you want. That perhaps you can earn a little less - but have much more at the end of the day - by moving to another locale.
You don't have socioeconomic sovreignty because you choose not to exercise it. You are the only thing holding you back in your success, unless you believe there is some black force out there specifically keeping YOU down.
Why do I have it? Because one day I decided to not go out and seek that next full-time job; I decided I was worth more than that, and that I would work for the highest bidder. I became a contractor, a gun for hire. And I take the power I need to get the job done. If I am restricted from taking it, I leave. It's not worth the hassle. But I have yet to find a client unwilling to cede that which is taken.
I make it a point not to take full-time contracts, nor long-term contracts. It gives me the freedom to walk from any job at any time, without worry. I know it, and my clients know it. Economic freedom - not being dependent on any given entity for my paycheck - is the ultimate empowerment.
Yes, I ruffle feathers, but at the end of the day the job gets done, the client is satisfied with the work, and ultimately my "boss" - my report - is happy because I took the initiative and as a result would have taken the blame.
But no, rather that seek to improve your position in life, you prefer to be a victim and rant about overpopulation - when in fact you can go a half-day North to an entire county in your state with fewer than 5 people per square MILE.
Why stick in your job? Are there too many others doing the same thing where you live? If so, move to somewhere where your skills are unique and you command the salary and self-determination you desire. Work for yourself, not for someone else.
What is to stop you from seeking alternative income in the same field you work right NOW, but in a different location? What is the worst that happens? You fail. You have to move back to SF, and get another job like you have now. In other words, you're no worse off than you are right now.
Realistically, you'd probably succeed if you worked at it. No one is holding you back but yourself. How do you know it won't work until you try?
You choose to live with local density; so be it. But don't try to use that as justification that the world in general is overpopulated because the numbers just don't back you up.
.
But the fundamental point remains; we don't have a lack of resources to support the current world's population (or even twice that number); we have a problem of distribution of those resources.
.
And billions of people live on less than that, today. And that was for a SINGLE river on the West Coast of the US. Add the rest of the rivers on the West Coast and we can up that to more than 100 gallons a day. That's only the rivers that outflow to the Pacific Ocean - none on the East Coast, or the Gulf Coast (including the Mississippi River).
The point is that we have plenty of resources in this world for 6.6 billion; even twice that. We don't have even distribution of the resources and that is STRICTLY a political problem. It's not because the wealthy nations are withholding the resources; it's because many of the shitholes around the world have thugs for dictators who insist on keeping it a shithole.
Finally to free trade. The poster is naive to believe free trade will solve the world's problems.
Show me where trade didn't help. What nation ever succeeded, what people ever advanced without trade?
Now show me a country that fell because it opened its markets and its economy, letting capitalism and free trade be the mantra of the day?
It (free trade) is currently weakening the US and may well cause our collapse.
The US has the biggest economy in the world, it's consistently growing. I bet you didn't realize that for all the wailing in the news, the US GDP will grow about 2.4% this year; that is MORE than the 2.2% of the Euro-zone. Yes, even with the weakened economy we're STILL growing faster than Europe.
And I bet you didn't know that we (the US) export more products today than ever before. Including manufactured products. The US is the number one manufacturer in the world. Did you realize that the US manufacturing output of 2007 was MORE than the entire GDP of China? Likewise with Germany - our manufacturing ALONE is greater than the GDP of Germany.
You want to know why our manufacturing base of employment is dwindling? Productivity. What used to take 100 people is now done with 10. You have automated systems and tools to make one worker produce a lot higher value, and with a lot less effort. Even as we're producing more value in manufactured goods, we're doing it with fewer people.
Go to an electronics assembly house in the US. You'll see a lot of automation. Now go to one in China - you'll see literally rows and rows of hundreds of people doing the job that 10 machines do.
S Korea recently banned US beef. Be real, it was protectionist. Maybe we could ban Kia's and Hyandai's.
South Korea is choosing to hurt its own citizens by restricting beef. Their own people must now pay more money, and it will prop up unsustainable businesses inside South Korea. Tariffs are the worst form of Government subsidies; not only do they support inefficient companies, but they create an artificial market for those companies.
I don't see how hurting our own population by eliminating a good source of low cost vehicles would be worthwhile. And it would also penalize the South Korean population, by reducing their exports.
China controls the exchange rate and thereby encourages exports at the expense of its own people being able to afford imports. Maybe we should ban chinese goods.
China controlling the exchange rate? It's fixed the maximum daily increase in value of the RMB versus the dollar, but it adjusts daily. The exchange rate has really paid off nicely over the last 15 months, as the RMB has dropped from 7.8 to the dollar to 6.8, and continues to drop. It's been a nice, free 15% return on money deposited in China. So much for controlling the exchange rate!
And the rise of the new middle class in China is BECAUSE of trade with that country. The reason the minimum wage has increased and is ENFORCED within China is because the country is becoming prosperous. And that is bringing about social change as well...
You want to better the lives of people? Open up trade. Restricting trade hurts all.
.
You're a fool if you think we aren't overpopulated. I consider my home, the SF bay area, overpopulated. Do you have any idea what home prices are like here? As a result, many of the people who grow up here, live here, and work here will never own a home; do you want to guess at the personal economic implications of renting for a lifetime in said housing market? I think you need to review your position on political science.
Wow. Just, wow. So because you CHOOSE to live in the highest density city in California, that means the WORLD is overpopulated?
Here's a solution for you: move to Hayfork, California. You can get 1200 square feet, 3 bedrooms, 1.75 baths, and 1.77 acres for $96,000. And less than 14,000 people in the county. A population density under 5 people per square mile.
Have you ever been to the Eastern side of your State? Traveled through northern Nevada? Across Wyoming? You'll find we're not over-populated. There are literally miles and miles of miles and miles.
You CHOOSE to live in a densely populated region. If you wanted, you could live just 5 hours north by car, in Hayfork, and have all the space you need.
.
I see. So it's better that we just wring our hands and let our mess fester? I mean, I know that's the European way, but it has such a history of not working out - see the start of all the Middle East crap back in 1922 with its formation, thanks to the Euro. I mean, if you're going to blame Saddam strictly on the US, then we should be realistic and blame the entire Middle East problem on the European nations who created the nightmare with their arbitrary and capricious national boundaries.
Where di the above poster say that the war was about oil?
Right here: Then he stopped towing the US party line and decided he'd trade oil with those pesky Europeans instead of the USA. Next thing you know, Iraqs been invaded.
Essentially saying that because Saddam stopped selling oil to the US, we went to war. And the facts just don't support that since Iraq was a minor supplier to us, we were a minor client of theirs.
Look at those getting handed contracts for things like energy infrastructure in Iraq.
Yes, let's look at them. We see countries from around the world receiving contracts. Unless Vietnam, Thailand, and Angola are US companies? Royal Dutch Shell? British Petroleum? UAE's DOME Corporation?
Guess what - drilling, transporting, and refining oil is a difficult, capital intensive business. Not many companies have a few dozen drill rigs laying around (at the cost of $20 million a rig). So it's no surprise that the biggest, best equipped and most experienced suppliers got the lion's share of the contracts.
Do you go with the brand-new start-up ISP for your mission critical installs or do you go with a well-established colo company?
.
The point is that for most of the history of that nation, the rulers could care less if the people get food daily. In fact, they'd prefer them to get food just a couple times of week - easier to keep them under the gun. The poor will provide the reason to "shame" the Western nations into giving more money and aid, which the rulers (really the governors - they hold most of the power in Haiti) use to better their own lives.
If the government of Haiti actually cared for its people, you'd see aid not only reaching them, but the government welcoming companies and infrastructure and resources coming in to build up their economy. Offering jobs, housing, education.
But they don't. That's the last thing the ruling class wants. So they refuse to allow any economic development because that would mean a change to their own iron-fist control.
.
OK, so distribution is a resource. Seems that resource is ALSO fixed, since we can transport tons of food and supplies, and billions of dollars around the world in a matter of hours.
The distribution networks exist. The resources exist. The issue is that you don't understand that some people just do NOT want their country to improve. They like the shit hole, for while it is a shit hole, it is THEIR shit hole and they run it.
.
As far as oil goes, the majority of Iraqi oil was controlled by BP and Shell until 1972 when Iraq nationalized oil. And then cut deals with France and Russia.
Note that BP is British Petroleum, a UK company. And Shell is Royal Dutch Shell, a Dutch company. The US had precious little stake in Iraq before 1972 or afterwards. And even the recent grants of oil rights saw US companies getting about 30% of the production leases.
The US has never been a major consumer of oil from Iraq. Nor has the US been a major consumer of oil from the Middle East; rather, most of the oil goes to Europe or Asia. The US still produces 45% of its own oil, and buys more from Canada than it does from the Middle East. We buy more from Venezuela and Mexico than we do from the Middle East.
If you want to say the war was about oil, then it was about the US ensuring a stable supply of oil for the EU, not for itself.
The evidence of the USSR and China and Vietnam show it to be true. Communism simply doesn't work. Why else would the USSR have collapsed economically, or China and Vietnam moved quickly (and continuously) towards a more free-market economy?
Western economies in the early 21st century are more socialist than the USSR ever was in terms of wealth redistribution and state support of industry.
Excuse me? I thought the USSR had two levels of wealth: none or all. For the US, we have a large continuum from zero to massive. But here's the big difference: in the US you can actually MOVE along that continuum. In the USSR, once a peasant always a peasant.
State support of industry? Companies are created and fold all the time. You can invest, you can speculate, you can purchase stocks and you can choose to work and live where you want. Those are basic facts that did not exist in the USSR.
How many private companies existed in the USSR? How many companies relocated to or from the USSR? If you didn't like the price of bread, could you go and get a license and create your own bakery and bid on wheat for your bakery?
Now consider how many private companies exist in the the US, and how many move in and out of the US. How capital can transfer from region to region, nation to nation. How fortunes can be made or lost. How you are not guaranteed success, nor protected from failure.
To compare the US to the USSR is unfathomable. Although I will grant you that Obama would definitely like to move us towards a much more communistic economy with nationalization of another 30% of the GDP...
Who knows whether Leninism could work today - probably not without some radical rethinking - but green issues are making this kind of discussion more urgent, as capitalism is inherently wasteful of resources.
Completely false. The gains we've made in productivity - meaning more output for less input - are entirely from the capitalist economies. The USSR (now Russia) and China are ecological nightmares because of communism, not because of capitalism.
Look no further than your local farmer's market. Clearly the farmer wants to make a dollar, right? Why does the food he sells cost 2-3X as much as the produce you can buy at your local grocery store? Even when you have to ship grapes from Chile, or lettuce from California.
The key is productivity with large farm production. In agriculture, productivity comes from climate. It is counter-productive to try to grow grapes or tomatoes en-mass in Wisconsin or Michigan. Likewise it's counter-productive to try to grow redwood trees in Arizona, or mine coal in New Mexico.
Capitalism naturally seeks to gain the highest return on investment. That forces productivity increases; if I can turn out my widgets for 10% less than you can, or make them with features that allow me to charge 10% more than you, make a better return on investment. And that in turn will force you - if you're actually dependent upon the market, and not the Government to keep you alive - to refine your production techniques to compete and innovate.
Green approaches - with goods, production, distribution - are inherently wasteful! Consolidation and vertical integration of markets - the eventual result of capitalism and the antithesis of the modern green/communist movement - is inherently efficient. Meaning less waste, and more output.
Consider shipping a package from Los Angeles to New York. UPS can get it there tomorrow for $30. That is a huge, integrated company. Replace it with dozens of small local couriers spanning the nation. You'll pay 50X that price, and it'll take a week or more.
UPS is not losing money on that shipment; they can simply do it for less because of their s
Absolutely. If there ever was a country that cried out for a few well-placed 700 grain bullets, it is Zimbabwe. Mugabe and his thugs have completely destroyed that country and single-handedly caused the deaths of millions of people.
I think you completely missed the point: the GP stated we were overpopulated, when demonstrably that is false. If you can support every single person in such a small area as Texas, and with the resources of just 40% of one continent, then how are we overpopulated? I guess that sailed right over your head...
I wasn't advocating moving everyone to Texas, merely pointing out that there isn't a population problem. Provably so. Unless you want to show otherwise? Clearly we have the resources to support everyone.
And if that is the case, then the fact that millions die each month from starvation must be because of some reason other than there are too many of them.
Take a look at Zimbabwe. 25 years ago, they were a net exporter of food, and starvation within Zimbabwe was unheard of. Jobs were plentiful. Education was free and open to all, and the country was quite peaceful.
Now? Zimbabwe can't even grow 20% of its own food. It's economy has been so wrecked that inflation is running at 10 MILLION percent annually. Prices double daily. Unless your wages increase at a higher rate - which they don't - you simply cannot survive.
How to solve problems like that? Well, you can try trade. It works for most places that give it a try. Grow the pie, everyone wins. But many places don't want or care for free trade and you get Myanmar, and Zimbabwe, and Haiti, and North Korea.
You want to solve those problems? You're not going to do it by talking. The rulers of those countries don't give a shit about the people. They are simply cattle to be used; in fact, in Haiti and Zimbabwe, cattle are worth more than people. I know, I've been to both.
So how to you negotiate with those bastards? They have everything they want. They have absolute control, they have air conditioned palaces, plenty to eat, and people to shoot and flay for sport. What can we offer them other than a restriction in what they do now?
You want to be humanitarian to the suffering people in those countries? You won't do it by providing food and money - that will just go to the thug running the place, guaranteed. You can support an insurgency, but that will take time, cost thousands - if not millions - of lives, and may not work.
Or you simply send in a few teams and in the course of a day or two eliminate the thugs. Eliminate the threat. Set up a government, and work to rebuild the country. It's worked every time we've tried it: Philippines, Japan, Germany, Iraq. Yes, Iraq.
You say I should grow up? I have, and I've been to those places. Ever run the pharmacy of a medical clinic in the hills around Dessalines, Haiti? Build water pumps in Kadoma, Zimbabwe? Distribute US Constitutions while teaching English in Hamheung, North Korea? Give out copies of the Declaration of Independence while teaching English in Dawei, Myanmar?
What's your solution? Sitting down and talking? How did the talking go with Myanmar's rulers - refused to allow all US, and most foreign, aid after the typhoon which killed 500,000.
How about talking with Saddam? Twelve years and still hadn't gotten anywhere - even talked for 5 years AFTER the US made regime change the official US policy. Of course, it didn't help that "pacifists" arguing for more dialogue - the UN, the French, the Germans, and the Russians - were skimming billions of dollars off their suggested "humanitarian" actions.
Speak softly and carry a big stick only works if you actually are willing to use the stick. If you're too squeamish for that, then I suggest you move over and let the grown ups actually do what needs to happen.
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Consider that the US is the most open economy in the world. And that the poor in the US are much better off than the middle class or rich in most of the world. And yes, I have been to most of the world (well, 94 countries so far).
While some people will gain hugely in a free market, even the bottom end gain when the economy grows - it's not a zero-sum game. And the free market inherently rewards those who grow it the most - the gain the most. But they also provide more income.
Capitalism - the US, the EU - won. Communism - the USSR and China - lost. The USSR shattered. China is moving towards a free-market economy. Communism as practiced by men simply doesn't work.
We don't have a resource problem. We have a distribution problem.
Not to mention that in my post I noted we could supply ALL our energy needs with nuclear. No need for crude oil for basically none of our energy requirements.
Oil was a cheap and high density power source; in the 1800s we used it because nuclear wasn't an option. Now we can use nuclear for most power needs, and use petroleum for whatever else (like plastics, high-density requirements like airplanes, etc).