Santorum Drops Out - Page 19

Figment · 2012-04-26, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

That right there is the shittiest excuse not to speak up ever invented.

Is it? What if you've been paying too little all this time? The amount of money you pay in fuel is excessively low. Complaining about it is like a kid not getting an ice cream for 5 cts and throwing a tantrum because he has to pay 10 cts now.

Meanwhile, we don't complain while paying 20 cts for the same ice cream for decades.

It's like those kids in a mall that want their candy and they want it now. It's ego-centrism at its best.

Guess what, supply and demand is a consequence of free trade. Deal with it maturely instead of complaining about it. You know where they keep oil prices artificially low? Argentina. A socialist state. They just nationalised YPF, apparently partially because Repsol refused to invest in YPF that was forced to sell oil under cost price to keep the Argentinian economy going.

Yay for Republicans acting like actual extreme socialists and wanting to keep oil prices low despite of market prices rising?

Figment · 2012-04-26, 12:38 PM

Regarding nuclear power, I'm not against it as long as the waste is stored responsibly and properly (extremely low chance of leaking and getting into groundwater etc) and the plants are built in safe locations.

I got rather annoyed with the people that used the tsunami in Japan (in the ring of fire zone) as a motivation to not built a plant in a very geologically stable area and close down any others. Germany is ending its nuclear power and as a consequence the brown coal plants will have to grow in output.

Not sure if you know what brown coal does to the environment, but this is what a mine looks like:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hHI8Ch9Q0x...chweiler+2.JPG

The mines are huge and keep expanding horizontally (threatening the existence of a lot of villages and nature) and a lot of land is basically destroyed, while the pollution from these coal plants is pretty heavy.

I'd prefer the risks associated with atomic power, as long as the plants aren't built and maintained by Russians.

Baneblade · 2012-04-26, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Is it? What if you've been paying too little all this time? The amount of money you pay in fuel is excessively low. Complaining about it is like a kid not getting an ice cream for 5 cts and throwing a tantrum because he has to pay 10 cts now.

Meanwhile, we don't complain while paying 20 cts for the same ice cream for decades.

It's like those kids in a mall that want their candy and they want it now. It's ego-centrism at its best.

Guess what, supply and demand is a consequence of free trade. Deal with it maturely instead of complaining about it. You know where they keep oil prices artificially low? Argentina. A socialist state. They just nationalised YPF, apparently partially because Repsol refused to invest in YPF that was forced to sell oil under cost price to keep the Argentinian economy going.

Yay for Republicans acting like actual extreme socialists and wanting to keep oil prices low despite of market prices rising?

The main reason fuel prices rise in the US is inflation. Now tell me I can't complain about that.

Figment · 2012-04-26, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

The main reason fuel prices rise in the US is inflation. Now tell me I can't complain about that.

Sure, potential Iran conflict potentially blocking the straight of Hormuz or war in the oil region of the world has nothing to do with oil price instability either.

Baneblade · 2012-04-26, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Sure, potential Iran conflict potentially blocking the straight of Hormuz or war in the oil region of the world has nothing to do with oil price instability either.

Not in the US typically.

Vash02 · 2012-04-26, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

Not in the US typically.

Oil prices are set on the global market. Are you trolling or something?

Baneblade · 2012-04-26, 09:42 PM

No, I'm just off my game lately.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-27, 08:45 AM

Meh.

Figment · 2012-04-27, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Every time there is a war is the middle east oil price worldwide goes up. The idea that the US would initiate a conflict in that region "for oil" is completely retarded.

Not really, if the regimes there threaten to stop delivering altogether for instance, that's even worse than expensive oil.

It is however true that stability in the middle east has been less important than human rights to the US.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-27, 09:21 AM

Meh.

Figment · 2012-04-27, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Ya really figmento. If all we cared about was oil we'd buddy up to those regimes and stay out of their business, its a lot easier, cheaper, and faster than a war which will only make prices higher in the short term and normal at best.

You did... the Shah of Persia (pre-Iran), Kuwait, Saudi Arabia (royal family), Egypt (Mubarak), Qatar, Yemen, Bahrein... Even Saddam...

That last one backfired a bit. And the local populace isn't always too happy with the US supporting the local despots.

Vash02 · 2012-04-27, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Ya really figmento. If all we cared about was oil we'd buddy up to those regimes and stay out of their business, its a lot easier, cheaper, and faster than a war which will only make prices higher in the short term and normal at best.

That's basically what has been happening for the last 50-60 years. We only bombed Libya because the people were uprising.

HalfManHalfGod · 2012-04-27, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

You did... the Shah of Persia (pre-Iran), Kuwait, Saudi Arabia (royal family), Egypt (Mubarak), Qatar, Yemen, Bahrein... Even Saddam...

That last one backfired a bit. And the local populace isn't always too happy with the US supporting the local despots.

Most of them we will buddy up to unless they do something supremely stupid like Iran hostage crisis.

However, US doesn't even get the majority of its oil from the middle east. Mostly from America2(those crazy Canucks) and that other place America subsidizes Mexico.

HalfManHalfGod · 2012-04-27, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Sure, potential Iran conflict potentially blocking the straight of Hormuz or war in the oil region of the world has nothing to do with oil price instability either.

This is absolutely correct.

Here's my oil plan for the US. Sorry Fig you're SOL

.

Every barrel of oil pumped from US owned property should be pumped out of the ground at a set price. Say $75 a barrel or what have you until we have enough for domestic consumption. Then whatever we have left can go on the open market.

Thoughts?

Figment · 2012-04-27, 11:52 AM

Chavez isn't exactly making things more stable in the region around Venezuela and the Gulf either.

Well I'd say Obama had the right idea (for America anyway) in becoming less dependent on foreign oil and more dependent on own, renewable energy sources. The Hoover Dam is one of the best things that happened to the US in that respect on an engineering level.

I also don't quite get why it took so long for companies and countries to think of stimulating the building of huge solar plants in desert areas. Similarly, getting energy out of the earth's crust to warm houses would save a ton of money and energy (heatpumps: dig a deep hole, pump cold water in, get hot water out).

And then there's simply more efficient use of energy (less heat losses through isolation, re-use of waste energy). That's all money saving on long term after an investment. Which is actually good for the economy in the long run. Sure it costs a bit, but hey, everything costs stuff.

Especially the African nations could become a huge source of energy for the world tbh, somehow they never realised that potential till the last decade. Algeria and Morocco for instance are now building large solar plans with French investors. I expect a lot more of that sort of thing to happen.