Fascism

Hmm...thats not a term I use very often. Maybe an "occupy" protester would be able to get us started but I dunno.

From what little I have read, fascists want to control the economy and hate the banks, Wall Street, etc. I think Mussolini fel;t that private enterprise was ok and would provide production...as long as the govt oversaw things. This sounds a bit to me like there may be some problems though.

Take my freind for example. He owns a cabinet shop. Manufactures and installs kitchen cabinets for people. He goes out, bids on the job and does a lot of work with private contracters....house builders.

But lets say he decided one day he wanted to branch over into furniture building. Wanted to make tables and fine furniture, etc. And what if the govt decided it didnt want him to do that ....maybe because that would meaqn competition for a friend of a govt official. So he is told, 'no, you cant do that'.

That flies in the face of our way of life.

AS I understand it, Hitler opposed Capitalism and favored Fascism. He blamesd the Jews for capitalism. And he felt that doing business for the sole reason of making money was wrong. I think he believed that business should only be conducted for the benefit of the state. And if he couldnt see how it benefitted the state, then that business had no right to exist. (Which might be the end of things like Playstation 3, High Def tv, private cellphones, the internet, etc).

This brings to mind one issue we are dealing with here. Our gasoline prices at the pump are high (for us at least). We are told that oil companies are charging their prices based on the global economy and have little control over prices. Fine, but they have made record profits for years now. So some feel like since they are making so much money, shouldnt they lower prices to help out the common man? The idea is to get them to help benefit the people and the state. Is that fascism? Further, since the oil is being pumped from the people's land, is it right for oil companies to sell off that oil to foreign countries and make a profit off of it while screwing the American consumers at the pump? ISnt that OUR oil?

I dunno. Just some food for though.

After doing a bit of reading, I'm not sure I am quite comfortable with what Fascism really is. I'm not sure anyone is because it appears that Fascism is different to different people. I'm having trouble nailing it down to a single definition, because the Marxist view of Fascism is somewhat different from that of Mussolini's or Hitlers. Further, I think many of us (myself included) are really thinking of Nazism rather than pure Fascism.

Fascims seems share many things with right wing Conservativism. They abhore communists, left wing liberalism, feminism, and movements such as gay rights, etc. But there appears to be no room for compassion or religion in real Fascism. Also there appears to be a heavy dose of classism in fascism...some people are seen to be as being "better" than others. This probably has a lot to do with what those people can do for the state.

But I'm reading right now about Nazism. This belief is polluted with ideas of racism and a secular, anti religious fervor. Groups like Jews and others are seen as undesirable and worthless, good for little more than slave labor, then disgarded like trash. Hitler's Germany did have churches, bt the Christian Cross was replaced by the Swastika and one's devoton was to be toward the Fuhrer, rather thaqn to God. The Fuhrer WAS god in Nazi Germany.

But this isnt necessarily the only definition of Fascism. And I'm having trouble coming up with an easy simple definition of Fascism.

Dennis324 wrote:After doing a bit of reading, I'm not sure I am quite comfortable with what Fascism really is. I'm not sure anyone is because it appears that Fascism is different to different people.

Well, unfortunately these days a fascist is "whoever doesn't share my political beliefs/has done something I don't like". Obama is a fascist (and a communist), Bush was a fascist before him, am sure there were ppl who called Clinton a fascist as well.

I'm having trouble nailing it down to a single definition, because the Marxist view of Fascism is somewhat different from that of Mussolini's or Hitlers. Further, I think many of us (myself included) are really thinking of Nazism rather than pure Fascism.

Naziism was an extreme right-wing form of fascism, fascism can be either right- or left-wing, or even centrist.

Fascims seems share many things with right wing Conservativism. They abhore communists, left wing liberalism, feminism, and movements such as gay rights, etc. But there appears to be no room for compassion or religion in real Fascism. Also there appears to be a heavy dose of classism in fascism...some people are seen to be as being "better" than others. This probably has a lot to do with what those people can do for the state.

Looking at what's been coming out of the republican party recently, there doesn't seem to be much room for compassion there either - plenty of religion tho. And as for some people are seen to be as being "better" than others, well...... :-p Then again, as ppl here have said often, there's not much real conservatism in the republican party these days either, beyond lip service.

Dennis324 wrote:Hmm...thats not a term I use very often. Maybe an "occupy" protester would be able to get us started but I dunno.

From what little I have read, fascists want to control the economy and hate the banks, Wall Street, etc. I think Mussolini fel;t that private enterprise was ok and would provide production...as long as the govt oversaw things. This sounds a bit to me like there may be some problems though.

Fascists I think didn't want to totally control the economy, but they didn't want the companies to control it either. They were in favour of small business but were against "supercapitalism" where a few large corporations effectively control the market and try to make the state serve their purposes.

Take my freind for example. He owns a cabinet shop. Manufactures and installs kitchen cabinets for people. He goes out, bids on the job and does a lot of work with private contracters....house builders.

But lets say he decided one day he wanted to branch over into furniture building. Wanted to make tables and fine furniture, etc. And what if the govt decided it didnt want him to do that ....maybe because that would meaqn competition for a friend of a govt official. So he is told, 'no, you cant do that'.

That flies in the face of our way of life.

That isn't fascism though, that's totalitarianism. You can have a totalitarian right-wing or left-wing system - communist countries like the USSR or North Korea are/were totalitarian. When most ppl are shouting about XYZ politician/policy being "fascist" or "nazi" what they are really normally shouting about is totalitarianism, but that doesn't roll off the tongue as easily nor is as sound-bite friendly as most ppl don't know what that is.

AS I understand it, Hitler opposed Capitalism and favored Fascism. He blamesd the Jews for capitalism. And he felt that doing business for the sole reason of making money was wrong. I think he believed that business should only be conducted for the benefit of the state. And if he couldnt see how it benefitted the state, then that business had no right to exist. (Which might be the end of things like Playstation 3, High Def tv, private cellphones, the internet, etc).

Well, to say that hitler "favoured fascism" is a bit like saying the pope "favours catholicism" - he didn't favour fascism, he WAS a fascist :-p And he didn't blame the jews for just capitalism, he blamed them for pretty much everything. And again, Hitler wasn't against small business, he was against overarching large companies.

This brings to mind one issue we are dealing with here. Our gasoline prices at the pump are high (for us at least).

Yeah, for you - try coming over here... :-P

We are told that oil companies are charging their prices based on the global economy and have little control over prices. Fine, but they have made record profits for years now. So some feel like since they are making so much money, shouldnt they lower prices to help out the common man? The idea is to get them to help benefit the people and the state. Is that fascism? Further, since the oil is being pumped from the people's land, is it right for oil companies to sell off that oil to foreign countries and make a profit off of it while screwing the American consumers at the pump? ISnt that OUR oil?

I dunno. Just some food for though.

Well, one of the reasons that the oil companies are making such huge profits is that they have huge tax breaks. So, I'd say that the first step there is to remove the tax breaks. So, the best way to get them to "help benefit the people/state" is to pay what they're supposed to pay, like everyone else (and on that, it looks like they tried and failed to do that recently). On the "is it your oil" bit, well, you could say that about any raw materials really couldn't you?

Yeah, I think Obama is trying to remove the tax breaks on oil companies now. My question is....if we do that, will it drive the oil companies offshore and into the arms of the Chinese or maybe down to S. America? Where will we be then?

Dennis324 wrote:Yeah, I think Obama is trying to remove the tax breaks on oil companies now. My question is....if we do that, will it drive the oil companies offshore and into the arms of the Chinese or maybe down to S. America? Where will we be then?

Well, oil is a bit different to say the services industries that normally go abroad, in that the "product" is physically unable to be just moved overseas (it being underground and all). And there's too much investment in the heavy infrastructure (refineries etc) to just up stakes and move. One of the things you might find is that suddenly the oil companies who have headquarters in the US move them to somewhere more tax-friendly on profits - those that haven't done that already.

One smart move to stop that tho would be to say "So you're a foreign company now eh? Right so, you've as much access to our oilfields as any other foreign company then, good luck getting new drilling permits....." :-)

I didnt realize your 1st post included a link. Lol! So after reading that, maybe I can comment on some of it now.

14 characteristics of fascism:

The author claims one is powerful expressions of nationlism Flags, lapel pins and expressions of patriotism. And then the author illustartes how prevelant that symbolism is here in America. This happened in Germany in the 30s during Hitler's rise. But Germany was feeling oppressed by Europe after WW1 at the time. And to be fair, it probably was at least as oppressed as the South was after our American Civil War. Unemployment was very high and the people were being demonized and blamed for all of society's ills at the time.

So when Hitler came along and began talking about national pride, it caught on like wildfire. So imo, National Pride was not the cause of Fascism. Heavy oppression was. Here in America we are very proud of our nation. We wave flags and have parades often. But to be fair, I have seen Irish Harps displayed on flags in Ireland as well as in Irish communities here. I've seen the St George flag and the British Unuion Jack being waved proudly and on clothing around the world. Same with Scotland. Same with other nations. So are all those nations fascist too? Nope. People are just proud of their heritage. I think the author has misrepresented things there.

2. The disdain for human rights. The author makes claims that our refusal to close guantanamo and hold military tribunals is a sign of fascism. Enhanced interrogation and secrecy is what he claims are signs of fascism.

Its becoming pretty clear to see what side of the fence this author is on. We've discussed these issues many times and it has led to some people leaving in a huff and quitting our groups. But imo, just because our military or CIA may have engaged in those activities for a period of time, it does not mean our nation is fascist. The mere fact that citizens can denounce such activities proves this because no citizen of a tuly fascist state could protest their govt.

The author also cites the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 as evidence of fascism in our country. IT should be noted that this author is siding with such notable champions of freedom as Al-Jazeera and the Voice of Russia in crticizing us. He is also in line with the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, The Center for Constitutional Rights, and The Council on American-Islamic Relations, all of whom are really eager to defend our country and Neer criticise us.

3. He says that fascist countries use scapegoats as a unifying cause. He claims Americans are now using Muslims as our unifying cause. I'd say he is deliberately clouding the issue. Most Americans will qualify that Radical Islamists are our enemies. Not the run of the mill Muslim. The author knows this but imo he's preaching to a crowd that hates America already.

I cant read anymore of that guy's salicious garbage. This article may as well have been written by an ocupy protestor or an ACLU rep. Its imo, a blatant attempt to drag America's reputation through the mud.

Miles1 wrote:
am sure there were ppl who called Clinton a fascist as well.

I have never actually heard that one. Of the many things you could say about him, fascist never came up.

Miles1 wrote:
Looking at what's been coming out of the republican party recently, there doesn't seem to be much room for compassion there either - plenty of religion tho. And as for some people are seen to be as being "better" than others, well...... :-p Then again, as ppl here have said often, there's not much real conservatism in the republican party these days either, beyond lip service.

....and the compassion is on the other side in exactly what example???

Miles1 wrote:

Dennis324 wrote:Yeah, I think Obama is trying to remove the tax breaks on oil companies now. My question is....if we do that, will it drive the oil companies offshore and into the arms of the Chinese or maybe down to S. America? Where will we be then?

Well, oil is a bit different to say the services industries that normally go abroad, in that the "product" is physically unable to be just moved overseas (it being underground and all). And there's too much investment in the heavy infrastructure (refineries etc) to just up stakes and move. One of the things you might find is that suddenly the oil companies who have headquarters in the US move them to somewhere more tax-friendly on profits - those that haven't done that already.

One smart move to stop that tho would be to say "So you're a foreign company now eh? Right so, you've as much access to our oilfields as any other foreign company then, good luck getting new drilling permits....." :-)

Nothing like people who know squat about a topic talking about it. Kinda like if I were to talk about brain surgery.

This is not really a response to any of you or to this post in general, but I find it funny that people are bitching about the oil industry making a profit and then trying to relate that profit to the price at the pump. Is it the oil companies objective to make profit??? For that matter is it not the objective of pretty much everyone alive to make a profit??? Now we got people saying that a large profit is a bad thing.

Lemme give you guys a hint: the price at the pump is not what is giving oil and gas production companies such large profits. Do you even know how many times the product changes hands before it even gets to the pump??? DO you even know what processes it went through, ya know exploration, drilling, production, refinement, etc. and just how many people it took to put it in your tank (trust me $4.00 would seem like a really good deal)??? Do you even know how much of that "profit" is net profit??? With an industry that considers simple maintenance AFE's based in the millions, not to mention the sums spent on finding and producing new areas, a huge gross profit is quickly drained.

Bitchin about the oil companies end of the year profits is like bitchin about tUSA's record breaking revenue levels......except that oil companies are smart enough to actually not run a deficit. Come to think about it, seems that I would rather have an oil tycoon running my country for a few years. Maybe we could turn a profit for a change.

Yes, I know imported oil changes hands often. What bothers me about oil companies is that, after being told for decades that prices are related to supply and demand, after listeing to this dog-and-pony show that all we need to do is drill baby drill or open up the Gulf or ANWAR or build more refineries, we learn that supply in the USA is at an all-time high, demand is down due to the mild winter, and, rather than lower the cost at the pump, the oil companies decide to sell the surplus overseas.

That pretty much tells us that no amount of drilling or refining is going to help with the cost at the pump. ITs al been one huge lie. It doesnt matter if we open up ANWAR or other sites in the US. We're screwed no matter what. The oil prices can only go higher and higher.

Dennis324 wrote:Yes, I know imported oil changes hands often. What bothers me about oil companies is that, after being told for decades that prices are related to supply and demand, after listeing to this dog-and-pony show that all we need to do is drill baby drill or open up the Gulf or ANWAR or build more refineries, we learn that supply in the USA is at an all-time high, demand is down due to the mild winter, and, rather than lower the cost at the pump, the oil companies decide to sell the surplus overseas.

That pretty much tells us that no amount of drilling or refining is going to help with the cost at the pump. ITs al been one huge lie. It doesnt matter if we open up ANWAR or other sites in the US. We're screwed no matter what. The oil prices can only go higher and higher.

No Dennis, DOMESTIC oil and natural gas changes hands several times before you, the end user gets it. It starts off on a production platform which is owned by an oil company. It is then sold to the pipeline company who then ships it to the refinery. Then after refining it is sold to a distributor who then sells it to the end supplier...and that is a simplified chain of custody.

Oil is affected greatly by supply and demand. We are producing a fair amount of oil, but we are still not up to the levels we produced in the 60's, but our cunsumption is about a 100X's more. Then we factor in China and realize that oil is used more for its byproducts in manufacturing and realize that the heavy crude we are producing in the western states is more suited for that than for making gasoline and you just start to scrape the surface of the largest, most important industry civilization has known yet.

Please forgive any grammatical errors. I am in the Houston area safety counsel typing this on my Blackberry at 6 am after driving 4 hours to satisfy dumbass govermental safety regulations. Honestly, I've been doing this for about 20 years. Do I still need annual refresher training in ladder safety or be reminded that I have to wear a hardhat and safety glasses. For fuck's sake, I sit in a friggin office most of the time.

Oh and I almost forgot, another reason oil is so expensive and a reason we get government subsidies is that we have to pay for our manditory monthly and annula audits. I just looked at the bill for PXP's Hidalgo platform for the 2012 audit. One platform with an annual audit that lasted 5 days. 42000 was the bill the government gave us. 42000 for 5 days! Damn but I wish I had that kind of billing cloat.

We were TOLD oil is affected greatly by supply and demand. But fact is supply is up over previous years. Yet the oil companies apparently sold off the surplyus to foreign countries and our prices kept going up.

Sorry man, I bought inot the supply vs demand argument for years. Butafter hearing Lou Dobbs and OReilly talk about recently, I just dont believe the supply vs demand argument anymore. What they have done is almost manipulate the price by selling off the surplus.

Dennis324 wrote:We were TOLD oil is affected greatly by supply and demand. But fact is supply is up over previous years. Yet the oil companies apparently sold off the surplyus to foreign countries and our prices kept going up.

Sorry man, I bought inot the supply vs demand argument for years. Butafter hearing Lou Dobbs and OReilly talk about recently, I just dont believe the supply vs demand argument anymore. What they have done is almost manipulate the price by selling off the surplus.

What surplus Dennis??? We as a country produce no surplus. Zip, zeron zilch.

Please read my above post again. We use far more per day than we produce. That is why we buy from Canada and Mexico.

All this supposed surplus is from where.....not our shores. Just because an American based company is producing more oil today does not mean it is actually being produce in tUSA. Take Chevron. An American company who is producing lots of oil now, but they ain't producing much here. Most of it is that little 3 year African job I was on a few years back whjen we were setting the Nimba field off the coast of Angola. The bulk of the rest comes from Indonesia.

So please will someone tell me where this surplus is???

Marconius wrote:

Dennis324 wrote:We were TOLD oil is affected greatly by supply and demand. But fact is supply is up over previous years. Yet the oil companies apparently sold off the surplyus to foreign countries and our prices kept going up.

Sorry man, I bought inot the supply vs demand argument for years. Butafter hearing Lou Dobbs and OReilly talk about recently, I just dont believe the supply vs demand argument anymore. What they have done is almost manipulate the price by selling off the surplus.

What surplus Dennis??? We as a country produce no surplus. Zip, zeron zilch.

Please read my above post again. We use far more per day than we produce. That is why we buy from Canada and Mexico.

All this supposed surplus is from where.....not our shores. Just because an American based company is producing more oil today does not mean it is actually being produce in tUSA. Take Chevron. An American company who is producing lots of oil now, but they ain't producing much here. Most of it is that little 3 year African job I was on a few years back whjen we were setting the Nimba field off the coast of Angola. The bulk of the rest comes from Indonesia.

So please will someone tell me where this surplus is???

Its really something that for all the actively producing wells we have in this country (in 2005 California alone had 48,417 active wells in 209 fields that produced 255.8 million barrels of oil, the nat. gas figure is considerably less impressive), yet we fall so short of our energy needs. We can drill more wells and open more fields for production, however I'm skeptical that we could a) ever come anywhere close to meeting our needs and b) be able to sustain it for very long before our reserves give out.

Oops, i didnt mean to imply that WE are producing a huge surplus. I meant that we HAD a surplus...or should have had one due to the mild winter. But the oil companies manipulated it so that we would wind up with a manufactured shortage, thus keeping our gas prices high.

You guys hate OReilly and Fox news, and think they are liars, so I dunno why I bothered to dig up this clip, but I'm gonna post it anyway because to me it explains a lot.



Ok, so they talked about the oil situation.

Oil is now our #1 export. I didnt know that.
We had (or ought to have had) all tyhis oil on hand after the mild winter.
But the oil companies shipped the excess to Asian markets.

So this proves to me that supply and demand in the US means next to0 nothing anymore. Since we live in this so called global economy, it doesnt matter if we have a surplus here. That wont drive down prices. If Asia;s demand is up, the oil is gonna be shipped over there that the price of oil will go through the roof here ANYWAY.

Now of course I realize that the oil companies are in business to make money for their investors.
I'm fine with that. And I dont mind that they have had record profits at all. Thats what they are supposed to do. But we're getting killed at the pump. And I dont really see how opening up ANWAR or drilling more offshore is going to do ANYTHING except fatten the oil companies wallets even more. I what lou dobbs and Bill O are saying is correct, even if we did that, the oil companies are gonna take that oil they pull up, refine it here and ship it to asia and it wont help us at the pump one tiny bit. Thats my point and thats Bill's point. So why bother?

And I'm really sorry for going on about this, but this is the sort of news that really angers me. Basically what they are saying is, gas is expensive, its gonna get more expensive and there aint one dang thing you can do about it.

Marconius wrote: Do I still need annual refresher training in ladder safety or be reminded that I have to wear a hardhat and safety glasses. For fuck's sake, I sit in a friggin office most of the time.

You never know, you might need to change a lightbulb in the office at some stage, and ladders on office floors can be tricky feckers. That lightbulb could shatter as well when you're changing it, and if you were looking up at the time, well....

:-p

Bryant wrote:

Its really something that for all the actively producing wells we have in this country (in 2005 California alone had 48,417 active wells in 209 fields that produced 255.8 million barrels of oil, the nat. gas figure is considerably less impressive), yet we fall so short of our energy needs. We can drill more wells and open more fields for production, however I'm skeptical that we could a) ever come anywhere close to meeting our needs and b) be able to sustain it for very long before our reserves give out.

We can cover our needs, but that is something we should not do. Instead of trying to develop technologies that we know won't really do us much (solar and wind have their limits as do electric cars), we should be investing in real solutions to our problem. Leave the hydrocarbons for what they are most needed for. Instead of demonizing all oil companies, we should realize that they are in fact nothing more than energy companies. Just who do people think has the resources to find alternative energy. I cannot believe that people are stupid enough to believe that they are not trying to do so. They are all about money and if one of them can get a new, renewable, and safe for the environment, then they would reap the profits.

I actually talked to a guy the other day who does not believe that oil is a finite resource........that took me of guard.

Dennis324 wrote:Oops, i didnt mean to imply that WE are producing a huge surplus. I meant that we HAD a surplus...or should have had one due to the mild winter. But the oil companies manipulated it so that we would wind up with a manufactured shortage, thus keeping our gas prices high.

You guys hate OReilly and Fox news, and think they are liars, so I dunno why I bothered to dig up this clip, but I'm gonna post it anyway because to me it explains a lot.



Ok, so they talked about the oil situation.

Oil is now our #1 export. I didnt know that.
We had (or ought to have had) all tyhis oil on hand after the mild winter.
But the oil companies shipped the excess to Asian markets.

So this proves to me that supply and demand in the US means next to0 nothing anymore. Since we live in this so called global economy, it doesnt matter if we have a surplus here. That wont drive down prices. If Asia;s demand is up, the oil is gonna be shipped over there that the price of oil will go through the roof here ANYWAY.

Now of course I realize that the oil companies are in business to make money for their investors.
I'm fine with that. And I dont mind that they have had record profits at all. Thats what they are supposed to do. But we're getting killed at the pump. And I dont really see how opening up ANWAR or drilling more offshore is going to do ANYTHING except fatten the oil companies wallets even more. I what lou dobbs and Bill O are saying is correct, even if we did that, the oil companies are gonna take that oil they pull up, refine it here and ship it to asia and it wont help us at the pump one tiny bit. Thats my point and thats Bill's point. So why bother?

And I'm really sorry for going on about this, but this is the sort of news that really angers me. Basically what they are saying is, gas is expensive, its gonna get more expensive and there aint one dang thing you can do about it.

Question;

What exactly makes you think that Bill O and Dobbs know anything at all about the oil industry???

Dobbs is a good finance guy, but he doesn't really know squat about this topic and....well...Bill is a bloviator.

Basically what I wrote really didn't even mean a damn thing to you. I can't even tell that you read it.

Wait a sec dude. You seem to be saying that if I am not working for the oil industry, then I'm too stupid to comment on this. The fact is that I am educated. I didnt fall off the turnip truck yesterday. And I'm at the very least, intelligent enough to see when the wool is being pulled over my eyes. I can tell sh*t from shinola.

It doesnt take an industry insider to see that if the oil companies are selling off oil surplusses here in the US, that they are manufacturing domestic shortages, creating higher prices (as well as profiting from those shortages). All the while preaching to us that they need to drill more and more in order to lower prices.

Look, I was on the side of the American oil companies up until a month ago. I truly thought that if we drilled more, then we could create a huge surplus here in America and our prices would drop, giving us relief. But this report by Dobbs has stunned me. Its clear now that the oil companies are never going to allow us to have a surplus here.

Here's a fact. Oil companies could care less about the prices at the pump. ITs pretty clear that they dont want lower prices. They want the price to go higher because it means more profit. Plus if they can con us into petitioning govt oficials into drilling more and more, then they can sell even more oil to Asian markets, all the while manufacturing a shortage here in the US, keep prices high both here and there and making billions more in the process.

Man, the oil companies are cutting our throats for profit.

And btw, i did read your posts...all of em. That doesnt mean I agree with them.

Marconius wrote:

We can cover our needs, but that is something we should not do. Instead of trying to develop technologies that we know won't really do us much (solar and wind have their limits as do electric cars), we should be investing in real solutions to our problem. Leave the hydrocarbons for what they are most needed for. Instead of demonizing all oil companies, we should realize that they are in fact nothing more than energy companies. Just who do people think has the resources to find alternative energy. I cannot believe that people are stupid enough to believe that they are not trying to do so. They are all about money and if one of them can get a new, renewable, and safe for the environment, then they would reap the profits.

I'm aware of this. California State University, Fresno currently meets ~ 25% of its electrical needs through some solar panals they had installed above one of the parking lots a couple years ago. Who do you think made those panels? Chevron. I also have experience using small BP solar panels to power remote scientific equipment.

I do disagree with you on the importance of solar power. I think this is ultimately the most valuable source for electricity in areas dominated with one to two story structures (ie most of the US). If you have sun and a roof to mount the panels on, you can meet at least a good part of your energy consumption and you can do it without releasing harmful emissions (CO, CO2, S2, H2SO4, etc.). I'm not certain how much that'll help us reduce our petro product use, but it will cut out a large part of our coal consumption.

I actually talked to a guy the other day who does not believe that oil is a finite resource........that took me of guard.

He's delusional.

Bryant wrote:
I do disagree with you on the importance of solar power. I think this is ultimately the most valuable source for electricity in areas dominated with one to two story structures (ie most of the US). If you have sun and a roof to mount the panels on, you can meet at least a good part of your energy consumption and you can do it without releasing harmful emissions (CO, CO2, S2, H2SO4, etc.). I'm not certain how much that'll help us reduce our petro product use, but it will cut out a large part of our coal consumption.

Isn't just solar panels you can use - if you're in a high-sun zone, I saw some pretty simple but effective ways to get your hot water as well when I was in China a few years ago: you have a water tank on the roof and welded into it and sticking up out of it was a series of metal pipes covered in a sheet of corrugated iron and painted black. the sun would heat the corrugated iron which would heat the pipes which would heat the water - simples! Am sure you can get slightly more high-tech versions as well.

and how about this:

I actually talked to a guy the other day who does not believe that oil is a finite resource........that took me of guard.

He's delusional.

You ask him which way he was going to vote in november? :p

Dennis324 wrote:Wait a sec dude. You seem to be saying that if I am not working for the oil industry, then I'm too stupid to comment on this. The fact is that I am educated. I didnt fall off the turnip truck yesterday. And I'm at the very least, intelligent enough to see when the wool is being pulled over my eyes. I can tell sh*t from shinola.

It doesnt take an industry insider to see that if the oil companies are selling off oil surplusses here in the US, that they are manufacturing domestic shortages, creating higher prices (as well as profiting from those shortages). All the while preaching to us that they need to drill more and more in order to lower prices.

Look, I was on the side of the American oil companies up until a month ago. I truly thought that if we drilled more, then we could create a huge surplus here in America and our prices would drop, giving us relief. But this report by Dobbs has stunned me. Its clear now that the oil companies are never going to allow us to have a surplus here.

Here's a fact. Oil companies could care less about the prices at the pump. ITs pretty clear that they dont want lower prices. They want the price to go higher because it means more profit. Plus if they can con us into petitioning govt oficials into drilling more and more, then they can sell even more oil to Asian markets, all the while manufacturing a shortage here in the US, keep prices high both here and there and making billions more in the process.

Man, the oil companies are cutting our throats for profit.

And btw, i did read your posts...all of em. That doesnt mean I agree with them.

No Dennis, I ain't saying your dumb, not by a long shot. It just seems like you have your mind made up even though I replied to your posts, you still seem to think there is a surplus. I want to know where. There is no surplus. Not here in tUSA, not aywhere. OPEC nations cut production at times to manipulate the market, but trust me, companies with shareholders never hold back and pull as much outta the ground as they can and there still isn't a surplus. China will buy any and all oil you wanna sell them right now.

Of course I asked what the price at the pump has to do with oil companies and I never did get an answer. Yeah, that might be a Chevron station you get your gas at, but do you honestly think it is gas from Chevron??? Do you honestly think Chevron owns that station??? No to both. The station is franchised and Chevron only gets a monthly franchise fee and the gas comes from whomever is supplying it(over here it is usually Dupre who buys the gas from several refineries in the Gulf South).

Now once again Dennis, what does the price at the pump have to do with the oil companies???

Bryant wrote:

I do disagree with you on the importance of solar power. I think this is ultimately the most valuable source for electricity in areas dominated with one to two story structures (ie most of the US). If you have sun and a roof to mount the panels on, you can meet at least a good part of your energy consumption and you can do it without releasing harmful emissions (CO, CO2, S2, H2SO4, etc.). I'm not certain how much that'll help us reduce our petro product use, but it will cut out a large part of our coal consumption.

Dunno Bryant. Maybe out west where you get optimal sun. Even then, residential power consumption pales when compared to the consumption of existing highrise structures. We really need to think seriously about retrofitting many of our tall buildings with those fancy photoelectric windows....of course power storage for nonpeak hours would be a massive undertaking.

Solar isn't that viable in most of tUSA when considering non-residential structures and neither is wind. Those hydrolouvres are a good idea. It takes a current of about 1.5 knots for those to generate electrcity but nobody talks about it. Hell if we were really serious and Climate Change is as big an issues as many try to make it out to be, we would be building greenhouse gas sinks. Yes we do have the technology to leech greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. Hell we even have the technology to slap it back together in the form of gasoline (that nuke plant in New Mexico did it if you remember that old article I linked up several years ago), but nobody ever talks about this or even considers it(now if greenhouse gases are a problem....shouldn't we leech them out).

All of this still doesn't help our needs for transportation. With our reliance on interstate trucking of goods and materials, how is electric motors gonna help. With the power requirements needed, you'd either have one hell of an electric motor or you would burn it up very quick. Then you gotta realize what the infrastructure is set up for and realize just what it would take to jump to another source. People by and large do not like those souless electric cars anyway. We love what an internal combustion engine does for us. Why else are these high power gas guzzlers so popular even today with high gas prices. We need a better, more sustainable cumbustable fuel that people will accept.