$98 per barrel oil

[Jay Honeck]

Well, boys and girls, here it comes. $4/gallon gas in America. This
will translate into $7/gallon avgas soon enough.

Our last fly-in guest at the hotel was almost two weeks ago... (And
we just had our 28th consecutive sell-out weekend, so business is
booming...)

:-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Aluckyguess]

The worst part is I dont see any end in sight.
"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Well, boys and girls, here it comes. $4/gallon gas in America. This
> will translate into $7/gallon avgas soon enough.
>
> Our last fly-in guest at the hotel was almost two weeks ago... (And
> we just had our 28th consecutive sell-out weekend, so business is
> booming...)
>
> :-(
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Yes - I have a name]

I usually pay $1 per gallon more for avgas than for hi-test.

$4/gallon for regular will probably mean $4.50 for hi-test and $5.50 for
avgas. Not a lot of difference, but still not $7

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Well, boys and girls, here it comes. $4/gallon gas in America. This
> will translate into $7/gallon avgas soon enough.
>
> Our last fly-in guest at the hotel was almost two weeks ago... (And
> we just had our 28th consecutive sell-out weekend, so business is
> booming...)
>
> :-(
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[www.surf]

To be happy in your country you are friendly invited to check it out
here in Italy...1 liter per 2 euros, that means we are already over
7$/gallon...in some aerodromes the price is also higher, 2.2?/liter,
we're still crying...
Stefan


"Jay Honeck" > ha scritto nel messaggio
ups.com...
> Well, boys and girls, here it comes. $4/gallon gas in America.
> This
> will translate into $7/gallon avgas soon enough.
>
> Our last fly-in guest at the hotel was almost two weeks ago...
> (And
> we just had our 28th consecutive sell-out weekend, so business is
> booming...)
>
> :-(
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1194445699.453892.326310
@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

> Well, boys and girls, here it comes. $4/gallon gas in America. This
> will translate into $7/gallon avgas soon enough.


Oh boo ****ing hoo.



Bertie

[Paul kgyy]

On Nov 7, 8:28 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Well, boys and girls, here it comes. $4/gallon gas in America. This
> will translate into $7/gallon avgas soon enough.

And the Indians and Chinese are just getting started on buying new
cars. Wait 10 years.

Meanwhile Continental can't seem to produce their new (T)IO550 fast
enough. Go figure.

Maybe with another million troops we could occupy both Iran and Iraq
and get a special deal.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Well, boys and girls, here it comes. $4/gallon gas in America. This
> will translate into $7/gallon avgas soon enough.

You'll survive. People in other countries have been paying similar prices for
years.

[Viperdoc]

Anthony, how much do you per for a gallon of avgas?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"aluckyguess" > wrote in :

> The worst part is I dont see any end in sight.

Of course there is an end in sight. The oil won't last forever and hat will
be an end to the problem of rising prices. The last barrel will be almost
priceless and the price will rise slowly and then exponentially until then.
Or it could become worthless grime when someone invents Mr Fusion.


Either way.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"www.surf" <wind@surf> wrote in news:4731e2e0$0$36444
:

> To be happy in your country you are friendly invited to check it out
> here in Italy...1 liter per 2 euros,


No it isn't. I was there the other day and the most expensive I saw was
about Euro 1.35/litre. Brits seem to have it the worst in Europe, but then
again it gives them somethig to blame their "guv'mint" for so it's
actually keeping them happy in the end.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Well, boys and girls, here it comes. $4/gallon gas in America. This
>> will translate into $7/gallon avgas soon enough.
>
> You'll survive. People in other countries have been paying similar
> prices for years.
>

But not you since you can't drive and you can't fly.


Bertie

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> No it isn't. I was there the other day and the most expensive I saw was
> about Euro 1.35/litre. Brits seem to have it the worst in Europe, but then
> again it gives them somethig to blame their "guv'mint" for so it's
> actually keeping them happy in the end.

We're currently paying about £0.94 a litre I think. According to XE.com
that's $1.98 or Euro 1.34

As you say, something like 75% of that goes straight to HMG in tax.

And I resemble the implication that we like to complain :)

Andy

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> No it isn't. I was there the other day and the most expensive I saw
>> was about Euro 1.35/litre. Brits seem to have it the worst in Europe,
>> but then again it gives them somethig to blame their "guv'mint" for
>> so it's actually keeping them happy in the end.
>
> We're currently paying about £0.94 a litre I think. According to
> XE.com that's $1.98 or Euro 1.34
>
> As you say, something like 75% of that goes straight to HMG in tax.
>

No, I didn't say that,. I said it gives you guys yet another excuse to
whine about how your govmint is abusing you.


> And I resemble the implication that we like to complain :)


I know. I particularly love your national anthem.

"We wuz robbed we wuz robbed we wuz robbed"


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns99E1B1773EDF3****upropeeh@
207.14.116.130:

> Andy Hawkins > wrote in
> :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In article >,
>> Bertie the > wrote:
>>> No it isn't. I was there the other day and the most expensive I saw
>>> was about Euro 1.35/litre. Brits seem to have it the worst in
Europe,
>>> but then again it gives them somethig to blame their "guv'mint" for
>>> so it's actually keeping them happy in the end.
>>
>> We're currently paying about £0.94 a litre I think. According to
>> XE.com that's $1.98 or Euro 1.34
>>
>> As you say, something like 75% of that goes straight to HMG in tax.
>>
>
> No, I didn't say that,. I said it gives you guys yet another excuse to
> whine about how your govmint is abusing you.
>
>
>> And I resemble the implication that we like to complain :)
>
>
> I know. I particularly love your national anthem.
>
> "We wuz robbed we wuz robbed we wuz robbed"
>
>

Having aid that, credit where it's due. I didn't hear one single whine
about the Rugby!

I was absolutely flabbergasted I have to tell you.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Anthony, how much do you per for a gallon of avgas?

I don't buy avgas myself (or any other type of fossil fuel).

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Anthony, how much do you per for a gallon of avgas?
>
> I don't buy avgas myself (or any other type of fossil fuel).
>



Yes, it;s pretty obvious what sort of fossil you commonly interact with.


Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> $4/gallon for regular will probably mean $4.50 for hi-test and $5.50 for
> avgas. Not a lot of difference, but still not $7

I use car gas in my plane. I filled it two weeks ago for $2.89 per
gallon. I flew to LaCrosse, WI that same day and paid $5 per gallon
for avgas.

I don't think $7/gallon avgas will be much of a stretch.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Maybe with another million troops we could occupy both Iran and Iraq
> and get a special deal.

Don't worry. In 12 months we'll have Hillary pulling us out (literally
and figuaratively) of the Middle East, and then our kids will be
forced to return to fight the Islamo-Fascist Iranians in another
decade or two -- only by then they'll have nukes.

Alas, Jimmy Carter had the chance to fix this problem way back in
1979...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The worst part is I dont see any end in sight.

Yeah, it's pretty funny when the Left cries that we're "In Iraq only
for the cheap oil!"

Damn, if this is the "cheap" oil, imagine how bad it would be if we
hadn't taken out Saddam?

Oh, well. High gas prices should really help Light Sport sales, with
those tiny little engines sipping 4 gph...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[george]

On Nov 8, 8:55 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > $4/gallon for regular will probably mean $4.50 for hi-test and $5.50 for
> > avgas. Not a lot of difference, but still not $7
>
> I use car gas in my plane. I filled it two weeks ago for $2.89 per
> gallon. I flew to LaCrosse, WI that same day and paid $5 per gallon
> for avgas.
>
> I don't think $7/gallon avgas will be much of a stretch.

Well we're already paying $1.64(NZ) a litre for super (road) so we
must be well over the $7 per gallon avgas

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1194466141.514812.211060
@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

>> The worst part is I dont see any end in sight.
>
> Yeah, it's pretty funny when the Left cries that we're "In Iraq only
> for the cheap oil!"

>
> Damn, if this is the "cheap" oil, imagine how bad it would be if we
> hadn't taken out Saddam?
>

Wow, you're wasting your life as a hotelier and promoter of Playstation
flying. You should be in politics.


Oh, and BTW, when did Alan Greenspan join the left, Mr Strawman?





Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1194465956.797757.251070
@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

>> Maybe with another million troops we could occupy both Iran and Iraq
>> and get a special deal.
>
> Don't worry. In 12 months we'll have Hillary pulling us out (literally
> and figuaratively) of the Middle East, and then our kids will be
> forced to return to fight the Islamo-Fascist Iranians in another
> decade or two -- only by then they'll have nukes.
>
> Alas, Jimmy Carter had the chance to fix this problem way back in
> 1979...
> --

Yeah, but whiney assholes like you stoped that, didncha?

luscky thing Reagan came along to fund Osama, eh?


Bertie

[kontiki]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Well, boys and girls, here it comes. $4/gallon gas in America. This
> will translate into $7/gallon avgas soon enough.
>


If the price of corn went to $10 an ear would people sit around
and bitch about their loss of purchasing power or would they
plant some corn in their yard and increase their net worth?

The United States has huge reserves of crude oil. As long as
we sit around with out thumb up our butt complaining and
and worshiping Owl Gore we will enjoy a continued lower US Dollar,
less purchasing power and make other countries rich.

An example of Stupidity.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

kontiki > wrote in news:ZgpYi.20300$ya1.9138
@news02.roc.ny:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Well, boys and girls, here it comes. $4/gallon gas in America. This
>> will translate into $7/gallon avgas soon enough.
>>
>
>
> If the price of corn went to $10 an ear would people sit around
> and bitch about their loss of purchasing power or would they
> plant some corn in their yard and increase their net worth?
>
> The United States has huge reserves of crude oil. As long as
> we sit around with out thumb up our butt complaining and
> and worshiping Owl Gore we will enjoy a continued lower US Dollar,
> less purchasing power and make other countries rich.
>
> An example of Stupidity.

in actual fact, by just about every index going your purchasing power is
vastly greater than at any period in the past.


Bertie

[kontiki]

Bertie you need to tell your doctor to increase the dosage.

[kontiki]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> in actual fact, by just about every index going your purchasing power is
> vastly greater than at any period in the past.
>
>

Give some examples of how my purchasing power is increased as the
value of the dollar decreases? Remember its a global economy.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

kontiki > wrote in news:1BpYi.20501$B25.15142
@news01.roc.ny:

> Bertie you need to tell your doctor to increase the dosage.
>
>


Do I now?

what do you think I should tell the doc to prescribe, a little of Huxley's
Soma?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

kontiki > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> in actual fact, by just about every index going your purchasing power
>> is vastly greater than at any period in the past.
>>
>>
>
> Give some examples of how my purchasing power is increased as the
> value of the dollar decreases? Remember its a global economy.


Well, let's see, people make more money and stuff costs less.



'splain it for you?


Bertie

[Mark]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>"aluckyguess" > wrote in :
>
>> The worst part is I dont see any end in sight.
>
>Of course there is an end in sight. The oil won't last forever and hat will
>be an end to the problem of rising prices. The last barrel will be almost
>priceless and the price will rise slowly and then exponentially until then.
>Or it could become worthless grime when someone invents Mr Fusion.

Agree with you up to exponential. As costs rise demand will
eventually lower so that will slow it down a little. And the stuff
that is currently uneconomical to drill today will become economical
to drill at higher prices per barrel. But yeah sometime we do
completely run out - it just won't be sudden.

And Mr. Fusion is going to be a bitch to fit anyway. I just know the
plasma containment magnets aren't going to fit a O-320 engine mount.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

(Mark) wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>"aluckyguess" > wrote in :
>>
>>> The worst part is I dont see any end in sight.
>>
>>Of course there is an end in sight. The oil won't last forever and hat
>>will be an end to the problem of rising prices. The last barrel will
>>be almost priceless and the price will rise slowly and then
>>exponentially until then. Or it could become worthless grime when
>>someone invents Mr Fusion.
>
> Agree with you up to exponential. As costs rise demand will
> eventually lower so that will slow it down a little. And the stuff
> that is currently uneconomical to drill today will become economical
> to drill at higher prices per barrel. But yeah sometime we do
> completely run out - it just won't be sudden.
>

depends. The exponential part will come sometime before the last gallon is
all that's left and it's simultaneously found to be a cure for cancer/an
aphrodisaiac/or the answer to life the universe and everything.

> And Mr. Fusion is going to be a bitch to fit anyway. I just know the
> plasma containment magnets aren't going to fit a O-320 engine mount.



's Ok. I'll knock one up for you.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
news:Xns99E1D62D7DDFA****upropeeh@
> 207.14.116.130:
>
>> kontiki > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>
>>>> in actual fact, by just about every index going your purchasing
power
>>>> is vastly greater than at any period in the past.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Give some examples of how my purchasing power is increased as the
>>> value of the dollar decreases? Remember its a global economy.
>>
>>
>> Well, let's see, people make more money and stuff costs less.
>
> If the dollar goes down, a lot of stuff costs more for them (merkins).
> Imported stuff, domestic stuff which uses imported parts, and travel
> abroad (which is also sorta "import" from the POV of the tourist's
> country - you buy foreign services with your domestic money, except
you
> consume them on location instead of having them delivered).
>
> OTOH it's good for their exporters, because their prices appear to go
> down for foreign customers.
>
> From the EUR POV it's the reverse.

True.

That has little to do with the standard of living in the long term,
though.

and that was the point you snipped from the beginning of the discussion,
decinding instead to focus on the spurious fallacy of temporal exchange
fluctuations instead.


Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> > Bertie you need to tell your doctor to increase the dosage.
>
> Do I now?
>
> what do you think I should tell the doc to prescribe, a little of Huxley's
> Soma?

Actually, a couple of shots of green chartreuse oughta loosen you up a
bit.

On second thought, maybe that's a bad idea...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in
ups.com:

>> > Bertie you need to tell your doctor to increase the dosage.
>>
>> Do I now?
>>
>> what do you think I should tell the doc to prescribe, a little of
>> Huxley's Soma?
>
> Actually, a couple of shots of green chartreuse oughta loosen you up a
> bit.

I'm plenty loose.

>
> On second thought, maybe that's a bad idea...


I think so. I don't drink crap.


Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> > Alas, Jimmy Carter had the chance to fix this problem way back in
> > 1979...
> > --
>
> Yeah, but whiney assholes like you stoped that, didncha?

In 1979 I was a sophomore at the University of Wisconsin, majoring in
English at the time. Even then, as a young, idealistic left-leaning
college student, I knew that the peanut farmer from Georgia was
screwing the pooch with Iran.

If Carter had done something -- ANYTHING -- to right the hostage
crisis, our current situation with radical Islam would be very
different. Instead, he did...worse than nothing, and 28 years later
we're facing a nuclear-armed Iran, run by the same idiots that hog-
tied our diplomats for over 440 days.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1194473157.386541.84410
@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

>> > Alas, Jimmy Carter had the chance to fix this problem way back in
>> > 1979...
>> > --
>>
>> Yeah, but whiney assholes like you stoped that, didncha?
>
> In 1979 I was a sophomore at the University of Wisconsin, majoring in
> English at the time. Even then, as a young, idealistic left-leaning
> college student, I knew that the peanut farmer from Georgia was
> screwing the pooch with Iran.
>
> If Carter had done something -- ANYTHING -- to right the hostage
> crisis, our current situation with radical Islam would be very
> different. Instead, he did...worse than nothing, and 28 years later
> we're facing a nuclear-armed Iran, run by the same idiots that hog-
> tied our diplomats for over 440 days.
> --


Oh brother


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1194473157.386541.84410
@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:

>> > Alas, Jimmy Carter had the chance to fix this problem way back in
>> > 1979...
>> > --
>>
>> Yeah, but whiney assholes like you stoped that, didncha?
>
> In 1979 I was a sophomore at the University of Wisconsin, majoring in
> English at the time. Even then, as a young, idealistic left-leaning
> college student, I knew that the peanut farmer from Georgia was
> screwing the pooch with Iran.
>
> If Carter had done something -- ANYTHING -- to right the hostage
> crisis, our current situation with radical Islam would be very
> different. Instead, he did...worse than nothing, and 28 years later
> we're facing a nuclear-armed Iran, run by the same idiots that hog-
> tied our diplomats for over 440 days.
> --


A paraphrase, Can't remember if it's Huxley, Orwell or Wells, but if
serious history ceases to be taught and the pursuit of the trivial by an
otherwise sophisticated society is central to a society, then they are
truly lost.


This being usenent, I'm sure someone will correct me, but it won't be you,
methinks.


Bertie

[NW_Pilot]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Maybe with another million troops we could occupy both Iran and Iraq
>> and get a special deal.
>
> Don't worry. In 12 months we'll have Hillary pulling us out (literally
> and figuaratively) of the Middle East, and then our kids will be
> forced to return to fight the Islamo-Fascist Iranians in another
> decade or two -- only by then they'll have nukes.
>
> Alas, Jimmy Carter had the chance to fix this problem way back in
> 1979...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

As in the words of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "We Don't Need To Build/Develop A
Nuclear Weapon" I can understand him saying that becuse he can get one from
one of his many friends like Kim Il Sung and others Like Fidel Castro, Hugo
Chaves, And Vladimir Putin. I am sure or "un" intelligent goverment had seen
what happned last month, Simple form! Ahmadinejad leaves U.S. for Vensuala
to visit Chaves then after Castro Returns form another growing
Muslim/Islamic country "Angola" visits with Chaves? Hummm!!!!!!!! Can we say
plot thickens 90 miles off our border!

Arm yourself while you still can your/our goverment will not protect you or
your family unless your a major corperation/banker!

[Judah]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1194466141.514812.211060
@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

>> The worst part is I dont see any end in sight.
>
> Yeah, it's pretty funny when the Left cries that we're "In Iraq only
> for the cheap oil!"
>
> Damn, if this is the "cheap" oil, imagine how bad it would be if we
> hadn't taken out Saddam?
>
> Oh, well. High gas prices should really help Light Sport sales, with
> those tiny little engines sipping 4 gph...


Do you really think our role in Iraq currently holds any positive impact on
the price of oil?

The price of oil right now is driven totally by near-monopolistic supply
and demand curves. They raise the prices during holidays and higher usage
periods (like the first cold week of winter) to reap the most significant
profits, and then back off just enough so that no one is really inspired to
really convert everything to used wok oil.

If Saddam were still in power in Iraq, he would be getting Halliburton's
cut of the action. That's about the only difference I see.

If anything, the war in Iraq was one of the catalysts for the oil companies
to start this cycle... Between vengefulness, and a real (although probably
artificially inflated) shortage caused by all of the oil fires, OPEC raised
the price. The reaction they saw was a big profit increase, and a small
grumbling, but no other significant consequences.

I wish I could do the same with my products...

[F. Baum]

On Nov 7, 1:05 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Don't worry. In 12 months we'll have Hillary pulling us out (literally
> and figuaratively) of the Middle East, and then our kids will be
> forced to return to fight the Islamo-Fascist Iranians in another
> decade or two -- only by then they'll have nukes.
>
> --
> Jay Honeck
Jay,
you belong on grumpyoldwhiteguys.com
KFBaum

[buttman]

On Nov 7, 12:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> Yeah, but whiney assholes like you stoped that, didncha?
>
> luscky thing Reagan came along to fund Osama, eh?
>
> Bertie

Oh wow a politics thread with Bertie participating, let me in on this!!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

buttman > wrote in news:1194502795.130125.172740
@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 7, 12:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, but whiney assholes like you stoped that, didncha?
>>
>> luscky thing Reagan came along to fund Osama, eh?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Oh wow a politics thread with Bertie participating, let me in on this!!



Why, couldn't find anyone to fly in front of today?

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Nov 7, 6:02 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "www.surf" <wind@surf> wrote in news:4731e2e0$0$36444
> :
>
> > To be happy in your country you are friendly invited to check it out
> > here in Italy...1 liter per 2 euros,
>
> No it isn't. I was there the other day and the most expensive I saw was
> about Euro 1.35/litre. Brits seem to have it the worst in Europe, but then
> again it gives them somethig to blame their "guv'mint" for so it's
> actually keeping them happy in the end.
>
> Bertie

More proces from Europe: Netherlands Euro95 1.52 euro/litre, 100LL
2.22 euro/litre. last week in France 100LL 1.77 euro/litre.

-Kees

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> Having aid that, credit where it's due. I didn't hear one single whine
> about the Rugby!
>
> I was absolutely flabbergasted I have to tell you.

:)

I think I was the only person in England that *didn't* think it was a try
(and yes, I'm English).

Andy

[kontiki]

Judah wrote:

>
> The price of oil right now is driven totally by near-monopolistic supply
> and demand curves. They raise the prices during holidays and higher usage
> periods (like the first cold week of winter) to reap the most significant
> profits, and then back off just enough so that no one is really inspired to
> really convert everything to used wok oil.
>
> If Saddam were still in power in Iraq, he would be getting Halliburton's
> cut of the action. That's about the only difference I see.
>
> If anything, the war in Iraq was one of the catalysts for the oil companies
> to start this cycle... Between vengefulness, and a real (although probably
> artificially inflated) shortage caused by all of the oil fires, OPEC raised
> the price. The reaction they saw was a big profit increase, and a small
> grumbling, but no other significant consequences.
>
> I wish I could do the same with my products...

Oil companies profit margins are about average compared with other
industries. As far as the price of oil... its not controlled by the
oil companies, it is set by the world-wide marketplace. The US could
be a bigger producer of oil but it chooses not to (for a number of
reasons) therefore it is much more at the mercy of Opec and the
geopolitical forces throughout the world.

If the US actually had a *real* energy policy to _include_ more
production, nuclear and alternatives then there would be immediate
downward pressure on worlwide prices. But we don't (that requires
actual intelligent leadership and the US has none) so we are in
the situation of paying out the nose with dollars that are worth less.

[Judah]

kontiki > wrote in
:

> Oil companies profit margins are about average compared with other
> industries. As far as the price of oil... its not controlled by the
> oil companies, it is set by the world-wide marketplace. The US could
> be a bigger producer of oil but it chooses not to (for a number of
> reasons) therefore it is much more at the mercy of Opec and the
> geopolitical forces throughout the world.
>
> If the US actually had a *real* energy policy to _include_ more
> production, nuclear and alternatives then there would be immediate
> downward pressure on worlwide prices. But we don't (that requires
> actual intelligent leadership and the US has none) so we are in
> the situation of paying out the nose with dollars that are worth less.

An increase of production of alternatives would only stand to drive the price
of oil even further up, based on the law of supply and demand...

Furthermore, it has been documented that oil companies and oil refineries
were absorbing some of the increased costs of oil when all of this started in
04 and 05... However, it has also been documented that oil companies have
increased their profit margins substantially since that time. San Francisco
Chronicle, for example, reported in March that oil refineries had DOUBLED
their profit margins...

[kontiki]

Judah wrote:

>
> Furthermore, it has been documented that oil companies and oil refineries
> were absorbing some of the increased costs of oil when all of this started in
> 04 and 05... However, it has also been documented that oil companies have
> increased their profit margins substantially since that time. San Francisco
> Chronicle, for example, reported in March that oil refineries had DOUBLED
> their profit margins...

Obsessing with profit margins of various companies doesn't solve
any problems. That seems to be the only problem that anyone really
worries about theses days though. Pretty sad.

[Jay Honeck]

> An increase of production of alternatives would only stand to drive the price
> of oil even further up, based on the law of supply and demand...

This sounds backwards. Explain, please.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> A paraphrase, Can't remember if it's Huxley, Orwell or Wells, but if
> serious history ceases to be taught and the pursuit of the trivial by an
> otherwise sophisticated society is central to a society, then they are
> truly lost.
>
> This being usenent, I'm sure someone will correct me, but it won't be you,
> methinks.

Your rapier wit cuts me to the quick, sir.

And your qualifications to make this statement are....?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay,
> you belong on grumpyoldwhiteguys.com
> KFBaum

Egad. I'm afraid I do!

Somehow I've crossed over to "the world is going to Hell in a hand-
basket" side of the aisle. When did *that* happen??

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I think so. I don't drink crap.

Green chartreuse is made by Benedictine Monks in France. My dad
brought it back with him after WWII, and introduced me to it when I
came of age. It's 110 proof, served straight up, and tastes a bit
like a cross between Nyquil and Jet-A.

It's almost unattainable around here now, but it's worth it if you can
get it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Martin Hotze]

Jay Honeck schrieb:


> Alas, Jimmy Carter had the chance to fix this problem way back in
> 1979...

to fix what? the financing of the Ayatollah? all the political moves
made by the British (et-al)?

#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Martin Hotze]

Jay Honeck schrieb:


> (...) and 28 years later
> we're facing a nuclear-armed Iran, run by the same idiots that hog-
> tied our diplomats for over 440 days.

I know it is hard, but just try for one minute to think what _they_
might think about us (Europeans) or you (Americans).

They are facing a nuclear-armed USA (and other countries), run by some
idiots that hold "hostile combatants" without trial etc. for undefined
time in concentration camps (Gitmo).

#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> Jay Honeck schrieb:
>
>
>> (...) and 28 years later
>> we're facing a nuclear-armed Iran, run by the same idiots that hog-
>> tied our diplomats for over 440 days.
>
> I know it is hard, but just try for one minute to think what _they_
> might think about us (Europeans) or you (Americans).
>
> They are facing a nuclear-armed USA (and other countries), run by some
> idiots that hold "hostile combatants" without trial etc. for undefined
> time in concentration camps (Gitmo).
>
> #m

Is the "they" you are referring to the same "they" that ****ed in the face
of all international law by taking over an embassy and holding its diplomats
hostage for 440 days, have supported international terrorism since the day
they came to power, have called for the destruction of multiple nations,
have attempted to over through the governments of their neighbors and have
tortured and killed their own citizens? Yeah, if I were them I'd want to be
armed too.

[Jay Honeck]

> They are facing a nuclear-armed USA (and other countries), run by some
> idiots that hold "hostile combatants" without trial etc. for undefined
> time in concentration camps (Gitmo).

The issue of enemy combatants is a complicated one when the enemy
fights an international, religiously-driven war. The rules of war, so
cut and dried when everyone agrees to wear different-colored uniforms,
behind a flag, get pretty fuzzy when one side hides behind women and
children, and doesn't identify themselves until they pop up holding an
RPG.

This war is quite different from past wars. Thanks to instant
worldwide communication national boundaries mean little. Radical
Islamicists span the globe, and carry on the fight without regard to
nationality. For the first time in history, an enemy is capable
(thanks to this wonderful internet) of carrying on a global war
without any kind of traditional force structure. This means that the
enemy can be literally *anywhere* -- truly a chilling thought.

Gitmo is a POW camp, and POWs are released when the war ends. With
one side so diffuse, and no one empowered to sign surrender papers,
how do you tell when the war is "over"? Your guess is as good as
mine.

How can we address the diffuse nature of the enemy? Aside from the
removal of Saddam, one of the main purposes of the invasion of Iraq
was to concentrate the opposition in one place, under the "flag" of
Jihad. While the Left has labeled Iraq a failure for becoming a
"spawning ground for terrorists", I believe that this was a deliberate
(and quite successful) strategy from the start. Like flies to ****,
the terrorists squandered their one true advantage by geographically
concentrating themselves so that a traditional military could defeat
them.

Of course, there are signs that they are starting to realize their
mistake. The current dramatic drop in violence in Iraq illustrates
that the enemy is no longer willing to confront the military head-to-
head, and may simply be melting back into the landscape.

It also may illustrate that the enemy has finally realized that all
they really have to do is wait till November 2008, and they will be
able to march into the Green Zone unopposed. Much like the Viet Cong
in 1974, all they have to do is wait for the US to retreat. (In case
you don't know, by 1975 the Viet Cong had renamed Saigon -- the former
capital of South Vietnam, "Ho Chi Minh City".)

Not that I would expect you to appreciate or understand the often
subtle nature of this worldwide conflict, but you really need to think
a LITTLE before you post. The issues are never as cut and dried as
you apparently believe.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Judah > wrote:
> kontiki > wrote in
> :

> > Oil companies profit margins are about average compared with other
> > industries. As far as the price of oil... its not controlled by the
> > oil companies, it is set by the world-wide marketplace. The US could
> > be a bigger producer of oil but it chooses not to (for a number of
> > reasons) therefore it is much more at the mercy of Opec and the
> > geopolitical forces throughout the world.
> >
> > If the US actually had a *real* energy policy to _include_ more
> > production, nuclear and alternatives then there would be immediate
> > downward pressure on worlwide prices. But we don't (that requires
> > actual intelligent leadership and the US has none) so we are in
> > the situation of paying out the nose with dollars that are worth less.

> An increase of production of alternatives would only stand to drive the price
> of oil even further up, based on the law of supply and demand...

There are no alternatives to oil.

The electric grid uses a vanishingly small amount of oil.

The transportation system uses a vanishingly small amount of electricity.

Electric transportation will never be viable until and unless a dramatic
advance in battery technology is made that will enable electric cars
to go 200-400 miles and power all the trucks on the interstate.

And of course you would have to build more electric generation
facilities.

We'll ignore ships and airplanes for the moment.

Technically the problem is trivial; manufacture synthetic fuels. We've
known how to do that for half a century.

Practically the problem is enourmous; the estimated costs I've seen
for synthetic fuels would be many times the current cost of gasoline
and diesel.

Synthetic fuel will never be viable until and unless a dramatic
advance in the cost of electricity production is made.

So called "renewable energy" isn't the answer; all those cost serveral
times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of making the
costs comparable to coventional methods is slim. Making the costs
a fraction of conventional costs isn't going to happen.

So, the bottom line is, either someone invents a wonder battery
making electric transportation practical, or someone invents Mr. Fusion
making production of synthetic fuel practical.

No free lunch.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1194529729.666509.257910
@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

>> I think so. I don't drink crap.
>
> Green chartreuse is made by Benedictine Monks in France. My dad
> brought it back with him after WWII, and introduced me to it when I
> came of age. It's 110 proof, served straight up, and tastes a bit
> like a cross between Nyquil and Jet-A.

I'll keep it in mind if I run out of rocker grease.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> Having aid that, credit where it's due. I didn't hear one single whine
>> about the Rugby!
>>
>> I was absolutely flabbergasted I have to tell you.
>
>:)
>
> I think I was the only person in England that *didn't* think it was a try
> (and yes, I'm English).
>

God, you'll have to move now.


Even worse, you'll have to find somewhere that hasn't already got a British
ghetto. May I suggest Arkansas?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in
oups.com:

>> A paraphrase, Can't remember if it's Huxley, Orwell or Wells, but if
>> serious history ceases to be taught and the pursuit of the trivial by
>> an otherwise sophisticated society is central to a society, then they
>> are truly lost.
>>
>> This being usenent, I'm sure someone will correct me, but it won't be
>> you, methinks.
>
> Your rapier wit cuts me to the quick, sir.
>
> And your qualifications to make this statement are....?


I have a brain.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> Martin Hotze wrote:
>> Jay Honeck schrieb:
>>
>>
>>> (...) and 28 years later
>>> we're facing a nuclear-armed Iran, run by the same idiots that hog-
>>> tied our diplomats for over 440 days.
>>
>> I know it is hard, but just try for one minute to think what _they_
>> might think about us (Europeans) or you (Americans).
>>
>> They are facing a nuclear-armed USA (and other countries), run by
>> some idiots that hold "hostile combatants" without trial etc. for
>> undefined time in concentration camps (Gitmo).
>>
>> #m
>
> Is the "they" you are referring to the same "they" that ****ed in the
> face of all international law by taking over an embassy and holding
> its diplomats hostage for 440 days, have supported international
> terrorism since the day they came to power, have called for the
> destruction of multiple nations, have attempted to over through the
> governments of their neighbors and have tortured and killed their own
> citizens? Yeah, if I were them I'd want to be armed too.


Actually, aside from the reference to the hastage thing, yo could e
talking about the US o Britain.


Bertie
>
>
>

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Bertie the > wrote:
> God, you'll have to move now.
>
>
> Even worse, you'll have to find somewhere that hasn't already got a British
> ghetto. May I suggest Arkansas?

Maybe. Is fuel cheap there? :D

Andy

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Andy Hawkins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> God, you'll have to move now.
>>
>>
>> Even worse, you'll have to find somewhere that hasn't already got a
>> British ghetto. May I suggest Arkansas?
>
> Maybe. Is fuel cheap there? :D
>
> Andy

Cheaper than the UK but not cheap.

P.S. To Bertie,

Bite my Arkansan Ass!

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> Actually, aside from the reference to the hastage thing, yo could e
> talking about the US o Britain.
>
>


You're full of ****, I know it and you know it. You are just trolling. It
was kind of fun when you were doing it only as a counter to MX but now you
are just being an asshat.

[Montblack]

("kontiki" wrote)
> If the US actually had a *real* energy policy to _include_ more
> production, nuclear and alternatives then there would be immediate
> downward pressure on worlwide prices.


One word: China

More words:

It's 1907 and Europe doesn't quite have a handle on the scope of what's
happening in the (industrial) U.S.

It's 2007 and the U.S. doesn't quite have a handle on the scope of what's
happening in (industrial) China.


Montblack

[Jay Honeck]

> > Alas, Jimmy Carter had the chance to fix this problem way back in
> > 1979...
>
> to fix what? the financing of the Ayatollah? all the political moves
> made by the British (et-al)?

He had the chance to eliminate the entire future leadership of Iran in
one airstrike. Carter didn't have the balls, for fear of harming the
hostages.

28 years later, we're paying a stiff price for having electing a
clawless, clueless president -- and now, instead of a few hostages, we
have many millions of lives at stake, and a nuclear-armed, radical
Islamic state.

Carter will go down in history as the one man who could have changed
the course of history -- and didn't. In 200 years historians will be
writing about him in the same breath as Neville Chamberlain.

Well, assuming the West wins the war, and we get to write the history
books.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Thomas Borchert]

Gig,

> You're full of ****

He may be, but in this case, he has a very valid point, even if you may not
like the sound of it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

> all those cost serveral
> times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of making the
> costs comparable to coventional methods is slim.
>

To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting there...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> The current dramatic drop in violence in Iraq
>

The what???

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

You can't really think the world is that simple. Well, I guess you can.

> and a nuclear-armed, radical
> Islamic state.

Yep, nuclear-armed, radical christian states are much better.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
Gig 601XL Builder<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> Cheaper than the UK but not cheap.

I'm there. Anyone got any spare floor space? :)

Andy

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Jay,
>
> You can't really think the world is that simple. Well, I guess you
> can.
>
>> and a nuclear-armed, radical
>> Islamic state.
>
> Yep, nuclear-armed, radical christian states are much better.

Yes, in fact, history has proven they are.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Andy Hawkins > wrote in
:

> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Bertie the > wrote:
>> God, you'll have to move now.
>>
>>
>> Even worse, you'll have to find somewhere that hasn't already got a
>> British ghetto. May I suggest Arkansas?
>
> Maybe. Is fuel cheap there?


No, but sqwerls is.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> Andy Hawkins wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In article >,
>> Bertie the > wrote:
>>> God, you'll have to move now.
>>>
>>>
>>> Even worse, you'll have to find somewhere that hasn't already got a
>>> British ghetto. May I suggest Arkansas?
>>
>> Maybe. Is fuel cheap there? :D
>>
>> Andy
>
> Cheaper than the UK but not cheap.
>
> P.S. To Bertie,
>
> Bite my Arkansan Ass!
>

Little less of your sex life please.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Andy Hawkins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Gig 601XL Builder<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>> Cheaper than the UK but not cheap.
>
> I'm there. Anyone got any spare floor space? :)
>
> Andy

I've got some empty hanger space. But my bet is that at the first sign of
next summer you'd be heading back to the UK.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> Actually, aside from the reference to the hastage thing, yo could e
>> talking about the US o Britain.
>>
>>
>
>
> You're full of ****, I know it and you know it.

Nope.

You are just trolling.


Nope.


> It was kind of fun when you were doing it only as a counter to MX but
> now you are just being an asshat.
>

So killfile me, but I did mean what I said.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Gig,
>
>> You're full of ****
>
> He may be, but in this case, he has a very valid point, even if you
> may not like the sound of it.
>

Thenkew.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1194538856.639970.150950
@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com:

>> > Alas, Jimmy Carter had the chance to fix this problem way back in
>> > 1979...
>>
>> to fix what? the financing of the Ayatollah? all the political moves
>> made by the British (et-al)?
>
> He had the chance to eliminate the entire future leadership of Iran in
> one airstrike. Carter didn't have the balls, for fear of harming the
> hostages.
>
> 28 years later, we're paying a stiff price for having electing a
> clawless, clueless president -- and now, instead of a few hostages, we
> have many millions of lives at stake, and a nuclear-armed, radical
> Islamic state.
>
> Carter will go down in history as the one man who could have changed
> the course of history -- and didn't. In 200 years historians will be
> writing about him in the same breath as Neville Chamberlain.
>
> Well, assuming the West wins the war, and we get to write the history
> books.


Good grief. You have to stop sniffing the lemon pledge.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Jay,
>
> You can't really think the world is that simple. Well, I guess you can.
>
>> and a nuclear-armed, radical
>> Islamic state.
>
> Yep, nuclear-armed, radical christian states are much better.


Well, at least we won't have to listne to those hippies talkin about that
damn evoh-lushin any more.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Jay,
>
>> The current dramatic drop in violence in Iraq
>>
>
> The what???

So now you are not only a knee-jerk European America hater but you have
reading comprehension problems as well.

He said, "The current dramatic drop in violence in Iraq"


http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSCOL248131

By Aseel Kami

BAGHDAD, Oct 22 (Reuters) - Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since
the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra
troops to stabilise the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry said on
Monday.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Jay,
>
>> The current dramatic drop in violence in Iraq
>>
>
> The what???
>

The violence has decreased slightly. "The current dramatic drop" thing is
Bush-ese for "we're gonna win this thing"



Bertie

[kontiki]

Montblack wrote:
> ("kontiki" wrote)
>> If the US actually had a *real* energy policy to _include_ more
>> production, nuclear and alternatives then there would be immediate
>> downward pressure on worlwide prices.
>
>
> One word: China
>
> More words:
>
> It's 1907 and Europe doesn't quite have a handle on the scope of what's
> happening in the (industrial) U.S.
>
> It's 2007 and the U.S. doesn't quite have a handle on the scope of what's
> happening in (industrial) China.
>
>
> Montblack
>
>

Ohhh you're right. China. Then there's no hope. The US should
just give up. We can't win cuz China's just too big. They're gonna
win, its no use. Lets just raise taxes and give up... hell,
we may as well just sell the United States to them, its all over.

[kontiki]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Jay,
>
> You can't really think the world is that simple. Well, I guess you can.
>
>> and a nuclear-armed, radical
>> Islamic state.
>
> Yep, nuclear-armed, radical christian states are much better.
>
>

If the US is so bad and Islamic countries are so great why haven't
you moved to Iran already?

[[email protected]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> > all those cost serveral
> > times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of making the
> > costs comparable to coventional methods is slim.
> >

> To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting there...

Not really.

With heroic effort we've managed to get the cost of "alternate"
sources of electricity down to 2 to 4 times what conventional
electricity costs, with the best costs being in the limited areas
where the alernates are optimized, for example solar power in very
sunny locations.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Thomas Borchert]

Gig,

> So now you are not only a knee-jerk European America hater

Jeeze, guys, I thought you came from the land of the free and all. Can't we
have an interesting discussion about this without throwing personal insults?
Kind of degrades your arguments if you start doing that as soon as someone
ventures a different opinion.

You don't remotely know me enough to be able to make that statement above. And
it's a typical knee-jerk ugly American redneck reaction of you, too ;-)


>...the Interior Ministry said on
> Monday.

Gee, I guess that's a truly objective and trustworthy source who would have
nothing to gain from coming to that conclusion, right?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Gig,

> Yes, in fact, history has proven they are.
>

Oh?

Let's see:

a) number of nukes dropped by nuclear-armed, (considered by some to be)
radical christian states
b) number of nukes dropped by nuclear-armed, (considered by others to
be) radical islamic states

This is fun!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Kontiki,

> If the US is so bad and Islamic countries are so great why haven't
> you moved to Iran already?
>

Show me where I said anything remotely like that. Just one post.

You know, I come from the country where your line of argument was
invented. We had two halves of our country - and the slightest
criticism in the Western half could easily provoke certain people to
suggest moving to the Eastern half in the way you did. I hate to say
it, but those certain people were the really dumb ones.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Jay,
>>
>>> The current dramatic drop in violence in Iraq
>>>
>>
>> The what???
>
> So now you are not only a knee-jerk European America hater but you
> have reading comprehension problems as well.
>
> He said, "The current dramatic drop in violence in Iraq"


Didn't rain today, must be the start of a drought.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Jay,
>>
>> You can't really think the world is that simple. Well, I guess you
>> can.
>>
>>> and a nuclear-armed, radical
>>> Islamic state.
>>
>> Yep, nuclear-armed, radical christian states are much better.
>
> Yes, in fact, history has proven they are.
>


Actually, history has proven the opposite, but the present situation is
certainly better. I've spent a lot of time in an islamic area nd they're
even more pig-headed and ignorant, by and large, than the christian right,
but only marginally so.

If either side gets it's way, we're heading for a new dark age of
superstition and ignorance. Ones as bad as the other and it's only when an
occasional spurt of intelligence comes by that the seemingly compelling
slide into stupidity is reversed.
Hopefully the US's little foray into the darkness will at least be slowed
next year when the chimp is gone.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

kontiki > wrote in news:StHYi.20533$B25.9249
@news01.roc.ny:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Jay,
>>
>> You can't really think the world is that simple. Well, I guess you
can.
>>
>>> and a nuclear-armed, radical
>>> Islamic state.
>>
>> Yep, nuclear-armed, radical christian states are much better.
>>
>>
>
> If the US is so bad and Islamic countries are so great why haven't
> you moved to Iran already?
>

Wow, some of you guys really need to learn how to argue.
I've gor a moldy turnip in the pantry that could put up a better one
than that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi


Scroll down and look at the links that Wiki has for some other
fallacious arguments. It's considerably easier to assert a position when
you have at least a few of these at your fingertips. When you spot
someone uing one you can call him names!

Great fun,


Asshole.


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Kontiki,
>
>> If the US is so bad and Islamic countries are so great why haven't
>> you moved to Iran already?
>>
>
> Show me where I said anything remotely like that. Just one post.
>
> You know, I come from the country where your line of argument was
> invented. We had two halves of our country - and the slightest
> criticism in the Western half could easily provoke certain people to
> suggest moving to the Eastern half in the way you did. I hate to say
> it, but those certain people were the really dumb ones.
>



You're Greek?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

kontiki > wrote in
:

> Montblack wrote:
>> ("kontiki" wrote)
>>> If the US actually had a *real* energy policy to _include_ more
>>> production, nuclear and alternatives then there would be immediate
>>> downward pressure on worlwide prices.
>>
>>
>> One word: China
>>
>> More words:
>>
>> It's 1907 and Europe doesn't quite have a handle on the scope of
>> what's happening in the (industrial) U.S.
>>
>> It's 2007 and the U.S. doesn't quite have a handle on the scope of
>> what's happening in (industrial) China.
>>
>>
>> Montblack
>>
>>
>
> Ohhh you're right. China. Then there's no hope. The US should
> just give up. We can't win cuz China's just too big. They're gonna
> win, its no use. Lets just raise taxes and give up... hell,
> we may as well just sell the United States to them, its all over.



Good grief.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in :

> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>> > all those cost serveral
>> > times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of making the
>> > costs comparable to coventional methods is slim.
>> >
>
>> To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting there...
>
> Not really.
>
> With heroic effort we've managed to get the cost of "alternate"
> sources of electricity down to 2 to 4 times what conventional
> electricity costs, with the best costs being in the limited areas
> where the alernates are optimized, for example solar power in very
> sunny locations.
>

The effort can hardly be charaecterised as heroic and your figures are
incorrect since the costs of fossil fuel and nuke doesn't include the
borrowing involved.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Gig,
>
>> So now you are not only a knee-jerk European America hater
>
> Jeeze, guys, I thought you came from the land of the free and all.
> Can't we have an interesting discussion about this without throwing
> personal insults? Kind of degrades your arguments if you start doing
> that as soon as someone ventures a different opinion.
>
> You don't remotely know me enough to be able to make that statement
> above. And it's a typical knee-jerk ugly American redneck reaction of
> you, too ;-)
>
>

I don't know you at all except for what you have wrtitten here. Your posts
when they are aviation related are ususally right on. But give you the
slight opening for a chance to make a negative comment about the US and you
jump on it every time. That is my definition of knee-jerk.



>> ...the Interior Ministry said on
>> Monday.
>
> Gee, I guess that's a truly objective and trustworthy source who
> would have nothing to gain from coming to that conclusion, right?

Reuters is anti-american enough for you? How about this.

http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Gig,
>
>> Yes, in fact, history has proven they are.
>>
>
> Oh?
>
> Let's see:
>
> a) number of nukes dropped by nuclear-armed, (considered by some to
> be) radical christian states
> b) number of nukes dropped by nuclear-armed, (considered by others to
> be) radical islamic states
>
> This is fun!

A] Number of innocent non-combatants killed by radical christian states when
there isn't a military target to be seen?

B] Number of innocent non-combatants killed by radical islamic states when
there isn't a military target to be seen?

You're right it is.

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> >> > all those cost serveral
> >> > times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of making the
> >> > costs comparable to coventional methods is slim.
> >> >
> >
> >> To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting there...
> >
> > Not really.
> >
> > With heroic effort we've managed to get the cost of "alternate"
> > sources of electricity down to 2 to 4 times what conventional
> > electricity costs, with the best costs being in the limited areas
> > where the alernates are optimized, for example solar power in very
> > sunny locations.
> >

> The effort can hardly be charaecterised as heroic and your figures are
> incorrect since the costs of fossil fuel and nuke doesn't include the
> borrowing involved.

"Fossil" fuels have nothing to do with nuclear energy.

The cost of electric production by nuclear energy includes the total
life cycle cost of a nuclear facility if the numbers are honestly
derived.

The total life cycle is everything from the first study to the last
cleanup on shutdown.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in
>> :
>
>> > Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>> >> > all those cost serveral
>> >> > times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of making
>> >> > the costs comparable to coventional methods is slim.
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting there...
>> >
>> > Not really.
>> >
>> > With heroic effort we've managed to get the cost of "alternate"
>> > sources of electricity down to 2 to 4 times what conventional
>> > electricity costs, with the best costs being in the limited areas
>> > where the alernates are optimized, for example solar power in very
>> > sunny locations.
>> >
>
>> The effort can hardly be charaecterised as heroic and your figures
>> are incorrect since the costs of fossil fuel and nuke doesn't include
>> the borrowing involved.
>
> "Fossil" fuels have nothing to do with nuclear energy.


>
> The cost of electric production by nuclear energy includes the total
> life cycle cost of a nuclear facility if the numbers are honestly
> derived.


Nope.


>
> The total life cycle is everything from the first study to the last
> cleanup on shutdown.
>

But not the storage of the fuel or the cleanup of the damage done by it.


Talk to me again if the experiment at Cadarache succeeds, otherwise, you
can keep them.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> The issue of enemy combatants is a complicated one when the enemy
> fights an international, religiously-driven war.

There isn't any such war.

> The rules of war, so
> cut and dried when everyone agrees to wear different-colored uniforms,
> behind a flag, get pretty fuzzy when one side hides behind women and
> children, and doesn't identify themselves until they pop up holding an
> RPG.

The safety of democracy, when the rules of war are cut and dried, is put in
grave danger when the rules become fuzzy and indistinct and demogogues claim
to be the only individuals qualified to recognize war when they see it.

> This war is quite different from past wars.

Yes: It's imaginary, and the illusion exists only to serve the ends of
political leaders.

> Thanks to instant worldwide communication national boundaries mean little. Radical
> Islamicists span the globe, and carry on the fight without regard to
> nationality.

Radical Muslims are such a small percentage of the world population that they
do not merit a mention. And there are equal numbers of other radicals
carrying out their aggression in the name of other religions.

> For the first time in history, an enemy is capable
> (thanks to this wonderful internet) of carrying on a global war
> without any kind of traditional force structure.

There is no global war.

> This means that the enemy can be literally *anywhere* -- truly a
> chilling thought.

Especially when you consider how this is the method used again and again by
political leaders throughout history to convert free societies into
dictatorships. Remember what Göring said at Nuremburg?

> Gitmo is a POW camp, and POWs are released when the war ends.

It's a concentration camp, and there is no war.

> With one side so diffuse, and no one empowered to sign surrender papers,
> how do you tell when the war is "over"? Your guess is as good as
> mine.

You don't. You pretend that the "war" continues forever, as an excuse to
maintain and augment an ever-growing police state. One day you're "at war"
with Eurasia, and the next you're "at war" with Eastasia.

The "enemy" seems diffuse because it doesn't exist. But the advantage of
having a diffuse "enemy" is that nobody can prove that it doesn't exist, and
so "wars" can be continued forever.

> How can we address the diffuse nature of the enemy?

We can't. We should instead insist on a clear identification of the "enemy,"
and a formal declaration of war, if required, with criteria that will
unambiguously identify a win or loss of that war. It has worked throughout
history, and it still works today.

> Aside from the removal of Saddam, one of the main purposes of the
> invasion of Iraq was to concentrate the opposition in one place,
> under the "flag" of Jihad.

The main motivation for the invasion of Iraq was a child's desire to take
revenge for embarrassment of his father.

> Like flies to ****,
> the terrorists squandered their one true advantage by geographically
> concentrating themselves so that a traditional military could defeat
> them.

The U.S. has practiced some of the worst foreign policy in history since Bush
was elected. As a result, it is creating "terrorists" where none existed
before. Almost all the goodwill that the U.S. has ever accumulated has been
destroyed by the current President's egregiously incompetent management of
foreign affairs.

> It also may illustrate that the enemy has finally realized that all
> they really have to do is wait till November 2008, and they will be
> able to march into the Green Zone unopposed. Much like the Viet Cong
> in 1974, all they have to do is wait for the US to retreat.

The sooner, the better. The U.S. has no place in Iraq, and has many problems
that it needs to solve at home.

> Not that I would expect you to appreciate or understand the often
> subtle nature of this worldwide conflict, but you really need to think
> a LITTLE before you post. The issues are never as cut and dried as
> you apparently believe.

What I see is that Göring was right.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Yes, in fact, history has proven they are.

Really? How? The Inquisition?

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> A] Number of innocent non-combatants killed by radical christian states when
> there isn't a military target to be seen?

About 250,000.

> B] Number of innocent non-combatants killed by radical islamic states when
> there isn't a military target to be seen?

About fifty times less.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> The issue of enemy combatants is a complicated one when the enemy
>> fights an international, religiously-driven war.
>
> There isn't any such war.



What's it matter to you? You'll never leave your bedroom


bertie

[Denny]

Back on topic, the future of the USA is coal as the main source of
energy... WIth some 200 years supply on hand, once oil hits some
magic figure, say $300/bbl, those who's main concern is global
warming, pollution and environmental protection will find themselves
shouted down in the halls of congress by the majority (it is a
representational democracy after all) who want warm houses and their
porn movies at an affordable price...
Cars will become electric for town with 300 miles being the norm for
range
(attainable right now in very small/light vehicles, much as 300 is
the normal range for my 4X4 truck)
and only use big vehicles burning expensive hydrocarbon fuels for the
vacation and special events - with these big cars being rented or time
share owned -
We will begin small steps back into light electric rail in the heavily
populated urban corridors sorrounding the big cities...
It is good we have the highway system as we let the railroad right of
ways get away... The rail systems will begin using the turn pike
centers as the new rail system... And it is efficient because the
turnpikes now go where we want to go, whereas the old rail right of
ways no longer go where the population wants...
House will begin shrinking after the bloat of the past 30 years...
And on....


A few years back, roughly 3, I said in these forums that oil would be
$100 within 5 years and I was snickered at... I now admit I was
wrong .... it is sooner...

denny

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote in
> >> :
> >
> >> > Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> >> >> > all those cost serveral
> >> >> > times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of making
> >> >> > the costs comparable to coventional methods is slim.
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting there...
> >> >
> >> > Not really.
> >> >
> >> > With heroic effort we've managed to get the cost of "alternate"
> >> > sources of electricity down to 2 to 4 times what conventional
> >> > electricity costs, with the best costs being in the limited areas
> >> > where the alernates are optimized, for example solar power in very
> >> > sunny locations.
> >> >
> >
> >> The effort can hardly be charaecterised as heroic and your figures
> >> are incorrect since the costs of fossil fuel and nuke doesn't include
> >> the borrowing involved.
> >
> > "Fossil" fuels have nothing to do with nuclear energy.


> >
> > The cost of electric production by nuclear energy includes the total
> > life cycle cost of a nuclear facility if the numbers are honestly
> > derived.


> Nope.

Yep.

"Levelized life-cycle cost is the total cost of a project from
construction to retirement and decommissinon, expressed in present
value and the spread evenly over the useful output (kWh) of the
project."

From just one source, feel free to find a contradictory one.

http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/ExecSummFinalReport_NJFF6_12_2007.pdf


> > The total life cycle is everything from the first study to the last
> > cleanup on shutdown.

> But not the storage of the fuel or the cleanup of the damage done by it.

You don't store fuel and what damage are you talking about?

And it does include the disposition of nuclear waste.

> Talk to me again if the experiment at Cadarache succeeds, otherwise, you
> can keep them.

Your personal preferences have nothing to do with what it costs in the
real world.

And since you probably don't know, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
requires that the costs of disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste be borne by the parties responsible for their generation.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides for two types of fees to be levied
on the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel: an ongoing fee of
1.0 mil (one tenth of one cent) per kilowatt-hour (kWh) on nuclear
electricity generated and sold after April 7, 1983, and a one-time fee
for all nuclear electricity generated and sold prior to that date.

Because the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel are required
to pay the full costs of its disposal, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
requires an annual assessment of the adequacy of the 1 mil/kWh fee.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/info_library/program_docs/annualreports/96ar-cp/sections/ocrwm007.htm

So the disposal cost is payed up front as an operating cost.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in
>> :
>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote in
>> >> :
>> >
>> >> > Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>> >> >> > all those cost serveral
>> >> >> > times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of
>> >> >> > making the costs comparable to coventional methods is slim.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting there...
>> >> >
>> >> > Not really.
>> >> >
>> >> > With heroic effort we've managed to get the cost of "alternate"
>> >> > sources of electricity down to 2 to 4 times what conventional
>> >> > electricity costs, with the best costs being in the limited
>> >> > areas where the alernates are optimized, for example solar power
>> >> > in very sunny locations.
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> The effort can hardly be charaecterised as heroic and your figures
>> >> are incorrect since the costs of fossil fuel and nuke doesn't
>> >> include the borrowing involved.
>> >
>> > "Fossil" fuels have nothing to do with nuclear energy.
>
>
>> >
>> > The cost of electric production by nuclear energy includes the
>> > total life cycle cost of a nuclear facility if the numbers are
>> > honestly derived.
>
>
>> Nope.
>
> Yep.
>
> "Levelized life-cycle cost is the total cost of a project from
> construction to retirement and decommissinon, expressed in present
> value and the spread evenly over the useful output (kWh) of the
> project."
>
> From just one source, feel free to find a contradictory one.
>
> http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/ExecSummFinalReport_NJFF6_12_
2007
> .pdf
>
>
>> > The total life cycle is everything from the first study to the last
>> > cleanup on shutdown.
>
>> But not the storage of the fuel or the cleanup of the damage done by
>> it.
>
> You don't store fuel and what damage are you talking about?
>
> And it does include the disposition of nuclear waste.


No, it doesn't.


>
>> Talk to me again if the experiment at Cadarache succeeds, otherwise,
>> you can keep them.
>
> Your personal preferences have nothing to do with what it costs in the
> real world.


Really?
What is the real world? If you think you know the answer to that you're
part of the problem.

>
> And since you probably don't know, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
> 1982 requires that the costs of disposing of spent nuclear fuel and
> high-level radioactive waste be borne by the parties responsible for
> their generation.


Right....

>
> The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides for two types of fees to be
> levied on the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel: an ongoing
> fee of 1.0 mil (one tenth of one cent) per kilowatt-hour (kWh) on
> nuclear electricity generated and sold after April 7, 1983, and a
> one-time fee for all nuclear electricity generated and sold prior to
> that date.
>
> Because the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel are required
> to pay the full costs of its disposal, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
> requires an annual assessment of the adequacy of the 1 mil/kWh fee.
>
> http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/info_library/program_docs/annualreports/96ar-
c
> p/sections/ocrwm007.htm
>
> So the disposal cost is payed up front as an operating cost.
>

And the disposed waste is where?


"We could have saved the earth but we were too damned cheap"

"They're stupid, they stink, I hate them"




Fact is, when you start doing things that are stupid and you are
affecting your neighbors, who haven't subscribed to your idiocy, you
have to expect a bit of hostility at the very least.

At the very most, you can expect some, um, unpleasantness.




Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Denny > wrote in news:1194553620.452564.220860
@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> Back on topic, the future of the USA is coal as the main source of
> energy... WIth some 200 years supply on hand, once oil hits some
> magic figure, say $300/bbl, those who's main concern is global
> warming, pollution and environmental protection will find themselves
> shouted down in the halls of congress by the majority

Yep, that is what will happen.

(it is a
> representational democracy after all)

No, it isn't.


who want warm houses and their
> porn movies at an affordable price...
> Cars will become electric for town with 300 miles being the norm for
> range
> (attainable right now in very small/light vehicles, much as 300 is
> the normal range for my 4X4 truck)
> and only use big vehicles burning expensive hydrocarbon fuels for the
> vacation and special events - with these big cars being rented or time
> share owned -
> We will begin small steps back into light electric rail in the heavily
> populated urban corridors sorrounding the big cities...
> It is good we have the highway system as we let the railroad right of
> ways get away... The rail systems will begin using the turn pike
> centers as the new rail system... And it is efficient because the
> turnpikes now go where we want to go, whereas the old rail right of
> ways no longer go where the population wants...
> House will begin shrinking after the bloat of the past 30 years...
> And on....
>
>
> A few years back, roughly 3, I said in these forums that oil would be
> $100 within 5 years and I was snickered at... I now admit I was
> wrong .... it is sooner...

Me, I'm backing lukewarm fusion.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Yes, in fact, history has proven they are.
>
> Really? How? The Inquisition?
>


What, you woried abouta new one where they fry idiots at the stake?



Does an idiot float?


Bertie

[Montblack]

("Thomas Borchert" wrote)
> You don't remotely know me enough to be able to make that statement above.
> And it's a typical knee-jerk ugly American redneck reaction of you, too
> ;-)


No need to start slinging the "r" word around.


Montblack :-)

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote in
> >> :
> >
> >> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> wrote in
> >> >> :
> >> >
> >> >> > Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> >> >> >> > all those cost serveral
> >> >> >> > times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of
> >> >> >> > making the costs comparable to coventional methods is slim.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting there...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not really.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > With heroic effort we've managed to get the cost of "alternate"
> >> >> > sources of electricity down to 2 to 4 times what conventional
> >> >> > electricity costs, with the best costs being in the limited
> >> >> > areas where the alernates are optimized, for example solar power
> >> >> > in very sunny locations.
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> The effort can hardly be charaecterised as heroic and your figures
> >> >> are incorrect since the costs of fossil fuel and nuke doesn't
> >> >> include the borrowing involved.
> >> >
> >> > "Fossil" fuels have nothing to do with nuclear energy.
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > The cost of electric production by nuclear energy includes the
> >> > total life cycle cost of a nuclear facility if the numbers are
> >> > honestly derived.
> >
> >
> >> Nope.
> >
> > Yep.
> >
> > "Levelized life-cycle cost is the total cost of a project from
> > construction to retirement and decommissinon, expressed in present
> > value and the spread evenly over the useful output (kWh) of the
> > project."
> >
> > From just one source, feel free to find a contradictory one.
> >
> > http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/ExecSummFinalReport_NJFF6_12_
> 2007
> > .pdf
> >
> >
> >> > The total life cycle is everything from the first study to the last
> >> > cleanup on shutdown.
> >
> >> But not the storage of the fuel or the cleanup of the damage done by
> >> it.
> >
> > You don't store fuel and what damage are you talking about?
> >
> > And it does include the disposition of nuclear waste.


> No, it doesn't.

It does by law contrary to your full and explicit refutation.

> >> Talk to me again if the experiment at Cadarache succeeds, otherwise,
> >> you can keep them.
> >
> > Your personal preferences have nothing to do with what it costs in the
> > real world.


> Really?
> What is the real world? If you think you know the answer to that you're
> part of the problem.

Really.

Sounds like MX; you don't like the answer, so attack the messenger.

> >
> > And since you probably don't know, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
> > 1982 requires that the costs of disposing of spent nuclear fuel and
> > high-level radioactive waste be borne by the parties responsible for
> > their generation.

> Right....

> > The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides for two types of fees to be
> > levied on the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel: an ongoing
> > fee of 1.0 mil (one tenth of one cent) per kilowatt-hour (kWh) on
> > nuclear electricity generated and sold after April 7, 1983, and a
> > one-time fee for all nuclear electricity generated and sold prior to
> > that date.
> >
> > Because the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel are required
> > to pay the full costs of its disposal, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
> > requires an annual assessment of the adequacy of the 1 mil/kWh fee.
> >
> > http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/info_library/program_docs/annualreports/96ar-
> c
> > p/sections/ocrwm007.htm
> >
> > So the disposal cost is payed up front as an operating cost.
> >

> And the disposed waste is where?

Somewhere safe.

> "We could have saved the earth but we were too damned cheap"

> "They're stupid, they stink, I hate them"


> Fact is, when you start doing things that are stupid and you are
> affecting your neighbors, who haven't subscribed to your idiocy, you
> have to expect a bit of hostility at the very least.

> At the very most, you can expect some, um, unpleasantness.

Non sequitur.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Yes - I have a name]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> About 250,000.

> About fifty times less.

Um.. That would be -12,250,000

How is that possible?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:8n8c05-hnm.ln1
@mail.specsol.com:
>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote in
>> >> :
>> >
>> >> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> wrote in
>> >> >> :
>> >> >
>> >> >> > Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>> >> >> >> > all those cost serveral
>> >> >> >> > times what conventional electricity costs and the odds of
>> >> >> >> > making the costs comparable to coventional methods is
slim.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> To come back to the start of the thread: we're getting
there...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Not really.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > With heroic effort we've managed to get the cost of
"alternate"
>> >> >> > sources of electricity down to 2 to 4 times what conventional
>> >> >> > electricity costs, with the best costs being in the limited
>> >> >> > areas where the alernates are optimized, for example solar
power
>> >> >> > in very sunny locations.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> The effort can hardly be charaecterised as heroic and your
figures
>> >> >> are incorrect since the costs of fossil fuel and nuke doesn't
>> >> >> include the borrowing involved.
>> >> >
>> >> > "Fossil" fuels have nothing to do with nuclear energy.
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > The cost of electric production by nuclear energy includes the
>> >> > total life cycle cost of a nuclear facility if the numbers are
>> >> > honestly derived.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Nope.
>> >
>> > Yep.
>> >
>> > "Levelized life-cycle cost is the total cost of a project from
>> > construction to retirement and decommissinon, expressed in present
>> > value and the spread evenly over the useful output (kWh) of the
>> > project."
>> >
>> > From just one source, feel free to find a contradictory one.
>> >
>> > http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/ExecSummFinalReport_NJFF6_12_
>> 2007
>> > .pdf
>> >
>> >
>> >> > The total life cycle is everything from the first study to the
last
>> >> > cleanup on shutdown.
>> >
>> >> But not the storage of the fuel or the cleanup of the damage done
by
>> >> it.
>> >
>> > You don't store fuel and what damage are you talking about?
>> >
>> > And it does include the disposition of nuclear waste.
>
>
>> No, it doesn't.
>
> It does by law contrary to your full and explicit refutation.
>
>> >> Talk to me again if the experiment at Cadarache succeeds,
otherwise,
>> >> you can keep them.
>> >
>> > Your personal preferences have nothing to do with what it costs in
the
>> > real world.
>
>
>> Really?
>> What is the real world? If you think you know the answer to that
you're
>> part of the problem.
>
> Really.
>
> Sounds like MX; you don't like the answer, so attack the messenger.
>
>> >
>> > And since you probably don't know, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
>> > 1982 requires that the costs of disposing of spent nuclear fuel and
>> > high-level radioactive waste be borne by the parties responsible
for
>> > their generation.
>
>> Right....
>
>> > The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provides for two types of fees to be
>> > levied on the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel: an
ongoing
>> > fee of 1.0 mil (one tenth of one cent) per kilowatt-hour (kWh) on
>> > nuclear electricity generated and sold after April 7, 1983, and a
>> > one-time fee for all nuclear electricity generated and sold prior
to
>> > that date.
>> >
>> > Because the owners and generators of spent nuclear fuel are
required
>> > to pay the full costs of its disposal, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
>> > requires an annual assessment of the adequacy of the 1 mil/kWh fee.
>> >
>> >
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/info_library/program_docs/annualreports/96ar-
>> c
>> > p/sections/ocrwm007.htm
>> >
>> > So the disposal cost is payed up front as an operating cost.
>> >
>
>> And the disposed waste is where?
>
> Somewhere safe.

Oh well., that's OK then.


>
>> "We could have saved the earth but we were too damned cheap"
>
>> "They're stupid, they stink, I hate them"
>
>
>> Fact is, when you start doing things that are stupid and you are
>> affecting your neighbors, who haven't subscribed to your idiocy, you
>> have to expect a bit of hostility at the very least.
>
>> At the very most, you can expect some, um, unpleasantness.
>
> Non sequitur.


No, it isn't.



Bertie
>
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote

> I've got some empty hanger space. But my bet is that at the first sign of
> next summer you'd be heading back to the UK.

Why, just because the humidity makes the air so thick, you can slice it with
a knife? Because the air is so hot that it feels as though you have opened
the door to a blast furnace? And that is at 09:00!

Or would it be because of the cockroaches the size of silver dollars, that
can even fly, that everyone has to keep in control with chemicals, and this
holds true even for people with clean houses in good neighborhoods?

I'm sure you have more to add to these, if you were being honest! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:


> No, it isn't.

Another 160+ line post to provide this full and complete retort with
citations and references to support the position.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Denny wrote:
>
>A few years back, roughly 3, I said in these forums that oil would be
>$100 within 5 years and I was snickered at... I now admit I was
>wrong .... it is sooner...
>

Good call. I hope you put your money where your mouth was. I was
thinking along the same lines in '03 and invested in oil. I don't plan on
getting out anytime soon. About the only thing that will slow overall
consumption (particularly in the asia/pacific region) will be a global
recession.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200711/1

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> The violence has decreased slightly. "The current dramatic drop" thing is
> Bush-ese for "we're gonna win this thing"

Numbers support the lessening violence, and they are not Bush (or anyone
else) driven propaganda.

Fact is, there have been less US and civilian deaths, country wide, for the
past month. A good number less.
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Morgans wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote
>
>> I've got some empty hanger space. But my bet is that at the first
>> sign of next summer you'd be heading back to the UK.
>
> Why, just because the humidity makes the air so thick, you can slice
> it with a knife? Because the air is so hot that it feels as though
> you have opened the door to a blast furnace? And that is at 09:00!
>
> Or would it be because of the cockroaches the size of silver dollars,
> that can even fly, that everyone has to keep in control with
> chemicals, and this holds true even for people with clean houses in
> good neighborhoods?
> I'm sure you have more to add to these, if you were being honest! <g>

09:00 HA... I laugh in your general direction try 06:00.

And yes those water-bugs do fly and we use them as a test. If you know they
fly and don't go insane you are South Arkansan. But that made me think of
soemthing. I've never seen one of them in my hanger. I wonder why?

[Judah]

"Montblack" > wrote in
:

> ("kontiki" wrote)
> One word: China
>
> More words:
>
> It's 1907 and Europe doesn't quite have a handle on the scope of what's
> happening in the (industrial) U.S.
>
> It's 2007 and the U.S. doesn't quite have a handle on the scope of what's
> happening in (industrial) China.

So illuminate. What exactly is the scope of what's happening in (industrial)
China?

[Judah]

Jay Honeck > wrote in
ups.com:

>> An increase of production of alternatives would only stand to drive the
>> price of oil even further up, based on the law of supply and demand...
>
> This sounds backwards. Explain, please.

It's a monopolistic situation, driven by factors other than a free market,
so it works backwards.

If fewer people are buying oil, the oil companies need to increase their
price to the market in order to keep revenues and profit margins up. They
are public companies with market expectations, which further drives the
need for increased prices.

Until such time as the alternatives are readily available to the entire
general public, it will only compete for those people who can, for example,
afford to trash their 1990 Honda Accord for a brand new 2009 wok-oil
burning Honda Wokcord. Not to mention all of the existing infastructure in
homes and businesses that cannot easily or quickly be retrofit to use some
other alternative energy source.

Eventually, over time, as improvements in technology bring down the cost of
switching, the "competition" created may cause oil prices to start to drop.
However, because the oil prices are determined in a collusive manner, it is
unlikely that you will find much undercutting and price-warring that you
find in other industries when an alternative is introduced.

Even if GM or Honda or whomever were to introduce a Wok-Cord today that was
affordable and practical as an alternative to gas-powered cars, it will
take at least 10 years (and proably twice that) before the impact is
significant enough to bring the oil companies back to free-market demand
curves. Especially if the oil companies continue playing the market so well
the way they have been. All they will have to do is keep the price low
enough to reduce the incentive to switch, and then they can gouge you every
holiday to make up the difference...

If you don't believe me, why don't you own a Prius?

[Judah]

kontiki > wrote in
:

> Judah wrote:
>
>>
>> Furthermore, it has been documented that oil companies and oil
>> refineries were absorbing some of the increased costs of oil when all
>> of this started in 04 and 05... However, it has also been documented
>> that oil companies have increased their profit margins substantially
>> since that time. San Francisco Chronicle, for example, reported in
>> March that oil refineries had DOUBLED their profit margins...
>
> Obsessing with profit margins of various companies doesn't solve
> any problems. That seems to be the only problem that anyone really
> worries about theses days though. Pretty sad.

No, but it provides evidence to those who claim that the poor-old-oil
companies are not benefiting from the price gouging that they are so artfully
executing.

What's the solution to the problem, then?

[[email protected]]

Judah > wrote:
> "Montblack" > wrote in
> :

> > ("kontiki" wrote)
> > One word: China
> >
> > More words:
> >
> > It's 1907 and Europe doesn't quite have a handle on the scope of what's
> > happening in the (industrial) U.S.
> >
> > It's 2007 and the U.S. doesn't quite have a handle on the scope of what's
> > happening in (industrial) China.

> So illuminate. What exactly is the scope of what's happening in (industrial)
> China?

Well for starters, the government run banks are cutting back on providing
funding to companies selling things at a loss.

As a result nonperforming loans as a percentage of outstanding loans
are down to 35% from the 50% of a year or so ago.

The total amount of nonperforming loans has been estimated to be as
high as approximetly $1 trillion.

Expect higher costs for Chinese goods as borrowers are expected to
make profits and repay their loans in the future.

Either that, or the whole Chinese economy is going to implode on bad
debt that exceeds the GNP.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Judah]

wrote in :

>> So illuminate. What exactly is the scope of what's happening in
>> (industrial) China?
>
> Well for starters, the government run banks are cutting back on
> providing funding to companies selling things at a loss.
>
> As a result nonperforming loans as a percentage of outstanding loans
> are down to 35% from the 50% of a year or so ago.
>
> The total amount of nonperforming loans has been estimated to be as
> high as approximetly $1 trillion.
>
> Expect higher costs for Chinese goods as borrowers are expected to
> make profits and repay their loans in the future.
>
> Either that, or the whole Chinese economy is going to implode on bad
> debt that exceeds the GNP.

What does the 21st century equivalent of the dot-com bust have to do with the
price of tea in... well... China?

[Newps]

Judah wrote:
> Jay Honeck > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
>
>>>An increase of production of alternatives would only stand to drive the
>>>price of oil even further up, based on the law of supply and demand...
>>
>>This sounds backwards. Explain, please.
>
>
> It's a monopolistic situation, driven by factors other than a free market,
> so it works backwards.
>
> If fewer people are buying oil, the oil companies need to increase their
> price to the market in order to keep revenues and profit margins up. They
> are public companies with market expectations, which further drives the
> need for increased prices.


Complete and utter hogwash. One merely has to watch the market reports
and every time there is a down trend in demand or an uptick in supply
the price drops. If all our cars suddenly got 10 mpg more the price of
oil and therefore gas would plummet.



>
> If you don't believe me, why don't you own a Prius?

Why waste money on that overpriced roller skate when you can spend less
and get better gas mileage?

[[email protected]]

Judah > wrote:
> wrote in :

> >> So illuminate. What exactly is the scope of what's happening in
> >> (industrial) China?
> >
> > Well for starters, the government run banks are cutting back on
> > providing funding to companies selling things at a loss.
> >
> > As a result nonperforming loans as a percentage of outstanding loans
> > are down to 35% from the 50% of a year or so ago.
> >
> > The total amount of nonperforming loans has been estimated to be as
> > high as approximetly $1 trillion.
> >
> > Expect higher costs for Chinese goods as borrowers are expected to
> > make profits and repay their loans in the future.
> >
> > Either that, or the whole Chinese economy is going to implode on bad
> > debt that exceeds the GNP.

> What does the 21st century equivalent of the dot-com bust have to do with the
> price of tea in... well... China?

The first line, your original question, i.e. "What exactly is the scope
of what's happening in (industrial) China?"

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> The violence has decreased slightly. "The current dramatic drop"
>> thing is Bush-ese for "we're gonna win this thing"
>
> Numbers support the lessening violence, and they are not Bush (or
> anyone else) driven propaganda.
>
> Fact is, there have been less US and civilian deaths, country wide,
> for the past month. A good number less.

Yep, I hope that it does mean that the thing has turned a corner, but I
doubt it.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>> No, it isn't.
>
> Another 160+ line post to provide this full and complete retort with
> citations and references to support the position.
>
>

**** off.


Bertie

[Judah]

Newps > wrote in
:

> Complete and utter hogwash. One merely has to watch the market reports
> and every time there is a down trend in demand or an uptick in supply
> the price drops. If all our cars suddenly got 10 mpg more the price of
> oil and therefore gas would plummet.

But supply is controlled by OPEC, not by free market forces, so your
observations are skewed. OPEC magically cuts supply at Holiday periods to
maximize profit taking. It happens now every holiday like clockwork. Google
"holiday gas price increase" and read articles from NYTimes and Wash Post,
and plenty of other sources that describe this phenomenon going back to 2004,
and that's just when it became so blatant that we figured it out...


>> If you don't believe me, why don't you own a Prius?
>
> Why waste money on that overpriced roller skate when you can spend less
> and get better gas mileage?

Proving my point exactly.

[ManhattanMan]

wrote:
> The total amount of nonperforming loans has been estimated to be as
> high as approximetly $1 trillion.
>

As of this afternoon, our debt exceeded $9 trillion.......

[Tom Conner]

> wrote in message
...
> Judah > wrote:
> > "Montblack" > wrote in
> > :
>
> > > ("kontiki" wrote)
> > > One word: China
> > >
> > > More words:
> > >
> > > It's 1907 and Europe doesn't quite have a handle on the scope of
what's
> > > happening in the (industrial) U.S.
> > >
> > > It's 2007 and the U.S. doesn't quite have a handle on the scope of
what's
> > > happening in (industrial) China.
>
> > So illuminate. What exactly is the scope of what's happening in
(industrial)
> > China?
>
> Well for starters, the government run banks are cutting back on providing
> funding to companies selling things at a loss.
>
> As a result nonperforming loans as a percentage of outstanding loans
> are down to 35% from the 50% of a year or so ago.
>
> The total amount of nonperforming loans has been estimated to be as
> high as approximetly $1 trillion.
>
> Expect higher costs for Chinese goods as borrowers are expected to
> make profits and repay their loans in the future.
>
> Either that, or the whole Chinese economy is going to implode on bad
> debt that exceeds the GNP.
>

Well, some good news comes out of this thread.

[[email protected]]

ManhattanMan > wrote:
> wrote:
> > The total amount of nonperforming loans has been estimated to be as
> > high as approximetly $1 trillion.
> >

> As of this afternoon, our debt exceeded $9 trillion.......

Apples and oranges.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[buttman]

On Nov 8, 12:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > Jay Honeck writes:
>
> >> The issue of enemy combatants is a complicated one when the enemy
> >> fights an international, religiously-driven war.
>
> > There isn't any such war.
>
> What's it matter to you? You'll never leave your bedroom
>
> bertie

And you'll never leave your computer desk.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> If fewer people are buying oil, the oil companies need to increase their
>> price to the market in order to keep revenues and profit margins up. They
>> are public companies with market expectations, which further drives the
>> need for increased prices.
>
>
> Complete and utter hogwash. One merely has to watch the market reports
> and every time there is a down trend in demand or an uptick in supply the
> price drops. If all our cars suddenly got 10 mpg more the price of oil
> and therefore gas would plummet.

Like OPEC gives a crap about "demand"?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

buttman > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Nov 8, 12:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > Jay Honeck writes:
>>
>> >> The issue of enemy combatants is a complicated one when the enemy
>> >> fights an international, religiously-driven war.
>>
>> > There isn't any such war.
>>
>> What's it matter to you? You'll never leave your bedroom
>>
>> bertie
>
> And you'll never leave your computer desk.
>
>


Leave it all the time, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

buttman > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Nov 8, 12:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > Jay Honeck writes:
>>
>> >> The issue of enemy combatants is a complicated one when the enemy
>> >> fights an international, religiously-driven war.
>>
>> > There isn't any such war.
>>
>> What's it matter to you? You'll never leave your bedroom
>>
>> bertie
>
> And you'll never leave your computer desk.
>
>



Hey, BTW, injineer boi, wanna get involved in the discussion on flutter?


How about the performance discussion? Bet you could wipe the floor with me
there, eh?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote in :

> wrote in :
>
>> There are no alternatives to oil.
>>
>> The electric grid uses a vanishingly small amount of oil.
>>
>> The transportation system uses a vanishingly small amount of
>> electricity.
>
> Concerning ground transport, there's rail which nowadays is mostly
> electric. The combustion engine is really only indispensable in air and
> ship transport, as you say, and a fraction of ground transport which
> for various reasons can't be transferred to rail.
>
>> Technically the problem is trivial; manufacture synthetic fuels. We've
>> known how to do that for half a century.
>>
>> Practically the problem is enourmous; the estimated costs I've seen
>> for synthetic fuels would be many times the current cost of gasoline
>> and diesel.
>
> There are methods for making oil from coal. Somewhere I read that the
> process has been revived in China. If it's so uneconomical, why are
> they doing it?

It's becoming ecomonically viable to do it in the west as well.


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote

> 09:00 HA... I laugh in your general direction try 06:00.

You are right. I was being kind. <g>
>
> And yes those water-bugs do fly and we use them as a test. If you know
> they fly and don't go insane you are South Arkansan. But that made me
> think of soemthing. I've never seen one of them in my hanger. I wonder
> why?

That's simple. I'm surprised you don't know the answer.

It's because the bugs are not certified to fly by the FAA ! :-)
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> Numbers support the lessening violence
>

I agree. But "dramatic"?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Gig,

> A] Number of innocent non-combatants killed by radical christian states when
> there isn't a military target to be seen?
>

Trust me, you don't want to go there.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Bertie,

> If either side gets it's way, we're heading for a new dark age of
> superstition and ignorance. Ones as bad as the other and it's only when an
> occasional spurt of intelligence comes by that the seemingly compelling
> slide into stupidity is reversed.
> Hopefully the US's little foray into the darkness will at least be slowed
> next year when the chimp is gone.

You done broke the code...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Bertie,

> You're Greek?
>

German.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Nomen,

> no american lives at serious risk.
>

One might argue that the deaths at the WTC (and all the deaths that
ensued) were at least in part caused by such "risk free" US actions as
you propose.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Nomen,
>
> > no american lives at serious risk.
> >
>
> One might argue that the deaths at the WTC (and all the deaths that
> ensued) were at least in part caused by such "risk free" US actions as
> you propose.

might? some actually do argue that... such people were wrong 9/12/01
and they are still wrong today.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-11-07, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> The worst part is I dont see any end in sight.
>
> Yeah, it's pretty funny when the Left cries that we're "In Iraq only
> for the cheap oil!"

Actually, if we are in $SOMEPLACE for oil, if it's a vast conspiracy,
we'd be there precisely because of expensive oil. What do the vast
"conspiracy" of oil companies want? It's not cheap oil - they make less
profit! If there was political/industrial cronyism at work, expensive
oil would be exactly the expected outcome.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Morgans > posted:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> The violence has decreased slightly. "The current dramatic drop"
>> thing is Bush-ese for "we're gonna win this thing"
>
> Numbers support the lessening violence, and they are not Bush (or
> anyone else) driven propaganda.
>
> Fact is, there have been less US and civilian deaths, country wide,
> for the past month. A good number less.
>
That may mean something to people who focus on quarterly results, but what
does it mean to those thinkinig in terms of millenia? Every strategist has
said that we can't sustain our occupation at the current level for much
longer, and then what? We aren't going to be able kill our way to peace in
this situation.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Yes - I have a name writes:

> > Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
> > About 250,000.
>
> > About fifty times less.
>
> Um.. That would be -12,250,000
>
> How is that possible?

It isn't.

250,000/50 = 5,000

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-11-08, > wrote:
> Electric transportation will never be viable until and unless a dramatic
> advance in battery technology is made that will enable electric cars
> to go 200-400 miles and power all the trucks on the interstate.

To be pedantic, *personal* electric transportation. Over here in
Rightpondia, electric transportation has been viable for frieght and
mass transport for decades. Here's a picture of such transport hauling a
load of frieght:
http://jasonrodhouse.fotopic.net/p43333298.html

Aviation is probably the hardest nut to crack - it requires a portable
and highly energy dense fuel - batteries probably never will crack it.
It'll always need a fuel with similar energy density characteristics as
diesel or gasoline.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Judah]

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in news:OQPYi.1979$rN1.919
@newsfe18.lga:

> wrote:
>> The total amount of nonperforming loans has been estimated to be as
>> high as approximetly $1 trillion.
>>
>
> As of this afternoon, our debt exceeded $9 trillion.......

Your owe $9 trillion?

Holy cow! How are you going to ever pay that back?

[Mxsmanic]

Dylan Smith writes:

> Aviation is probably the hardest nut to crack - it requires a portable
> and highly energy dense fuel - batteries probably never will crack it.
> It'll always need a fuel with similar energy density characteristics as
> diesel or gasoline.

Hydrogen springs to mind, but storing it safely and in small volumes is
problmatic.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Holy cow! How are you going to ever pay that back?

That's an unanswered question right now.

[kontiki]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>> There are methods for making oil from coal. Somewhere I read that the
>> process has been revived in China. If it's so uneconomical, why are
>> they doing it?
>
> It's becoming ecomonically viable to do it in the west as well.
>
>

Exactly.... Especially when you build these plants so that
they use nuclear and/or solar to power the synthetic fuel
'refining' process. This is also true if you want a positive
payback in ethanol production.

Remember that oil is used in zillions of products, manufacturing
processes and machinery that we still use and will need to use,
probably forever. Yes, we can reduce our use of it but we are still
going to *need* it. Other countries seem to understand this and are
still exploring for and producing oil, if not for export but even
just for their own use. For us not to do the same thing is simply
foolish.

[Montblack]

("Judah" wrote)
> So illuminate. What exactly is the scope of what's happening in
> (industrial) China?


Phenomenal growth and potential for more growth.


Montblack

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Holy cow! How are you going to ever pay that back?
>
> That's an unanswered question right now.


Way to contribute there luser boi.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

kontiki > wrote in news:UQZYi.20375$ya1.2776
@news02.roc.ny:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>> There are methods for making oil from coal. Somewhere I read that the
>>> process has been revived in China. If it's so uneconomical, why are
>>> they doing it?
>>
>> It's becoming ecomonically viable to do it in the west as well.
>>
>>
>
> Exactly.... Especially when you build these plants so that
> they use nuclear and/or solar to power the synthetic fuel
> 'refining' process. This is also true if you want a positive
> payback in ethanol production.
>
> Remember that oil is used in zillions of products, manufacturing
> processes and machinery that we still use and will need to use,
> probably forever. Yes, we can reduce our use of it but we are still
> going to *need* it. Other countries seem to understand this and are
> still exploring for and producing oil, if not for export but even
> just for their own use. For us not to do the same thing is simply
> foolish.
>
>

I didn't say I thought it was a god idea, I just said it's economicaly
viable.

Persnoally, I think we should be looking into making airplanes fly on
Sparrow farts. Plenty of untaped methanol there.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
>
>> If either side gets it's way, we're heading for a new dark age of
>> superstition and ignorance. Ones as bad as the other and it's only
>> when an occasional spurt of intelligence comes by that the seemingly
>> compelling slide into stupidity is reversed.
>> Hopefully the US's little foray into the darkness will at least be
>> slowed next year when the chimp is gone.
>
> You done broke the code...
>

Pretty obvious really. At least I think so.

Some areas are already there.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
>
>> You're Greek?
>>
>
> German.
>

OK, I better explain then, there's a difference between developing a system
of argument and getting five (excellent) beers into you and then
telling your neighbor he has to start wearing lederhosen.


The Jefferson Airplane will back me up on this one.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Yes - I have a name writes:
>
>> > Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>
>> > About 250,000.
>>
>> > About fifty times less.
>>
>> Um.. That would be -12,250,000
>>
>> How is that possible?
>
> It isn't.
>
> 250,000/50 = 5,000
>


Autism boi chips in with his finger math skills once again.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dylan Smith writes:
>
>> Aviation is probably the hardest nut to crack - it requires a portable
>> and highly energy dense fuel - batteries probably never will crack it.
>> It'll always need a fuel with similar energy density characteristics as
>> diesel or gasoline.
>
> Hydrogen springs to mind, but storing it safely and in small volumes is
> problmatic.


Been done, fjukkwit.



Bertie

[Yes - I have a name]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Yes - I have a name writes:
>
> > > Gig 601XL Builder writes:
> >
> > > About 250,000.
> >
> > > About fifty times less.
> >
> > Um.. That would be -12,250,000
> >
> > How is that possible?
>
> It isn't.
>
> 250,000/50 = 5,000

Gee, you're "near correct"

[[email protected]]

Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > There are no alternatives to oil.
> >
> > The electric grid uses a vanishingly small amount of oil.
> >
> > The transportation system uses a vanishingly small amount of
> > electricity.

> Concerning ground transport, there's rail which nowadays is mostly
> electric. The combustion engine is really only indispensable in air and
> ship transport, as you say, and a fraction of ground transport which
> for various reasons can't be transferred to rail.

Most rail is diesel electric; there is a diesel engine driving a
generator.

There are no electrified rails or overhead wires between LA and
Chicago.

Unless you run tracks from every distribution center to every local
retail outlet, rail can never be more than a small fraction of the
transportation system.

Rail is good for hauling bulk items, such as coal, over long distances
between major hubs.

It doesn't get lettuce from Fresno to grocery stores in San Diego.


> > Technically the problem is trivial; manufacture synthetic fuels. We've
> > known how to do that for half a century.
> >
> > Practically the problem is enourmous; the estimated costs I've seen
> > for synthetic fuels would be many times the current cost of gasoline
> > and diesel.

> There are methods for making oil from coal. Somewhere I read that the
> process has been revived in China. If it's so uneconomical, why are
> they doing it?

As I said before, such processes have been doable for about a half
century now.

No one is doing it commercially because it is too expensive.

Lots of people are tinkering to see if the cost can be reduced.

When the price of crude oil exceeds the cost of making artificial oil,
then it will happen commercially.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

kontiki > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> >> There are methods for making oil from coal. Somewhere I read that the
> >> process has been revived in China. If it's so uneconomical, why are
> >> they doing it?
> >
> > It's becoming ecomonically viable to do it in the west as well.
> >
> >

> Exactly.... Especially when you build these plants so that
> they use nuclear and/or solar to power the synthetic fuel
> 'refining' process. This is also true if you want a positive
> payback in ethanol production.

Nuclear yes, solar no; solar is too expensive.

Just because sunlight is free doesn't mean the equipment to do the
conversion is.

> Remember that oil is used in zillions of products, manufacturing
> processes and machinery that we still use and will need to use,
> probably forever. Yes, we can reduce our use of it but we are still
> going to *need* it. Other countries seem to understand this and are
> still exploring for and producing oil, if not for export but even
> just for their own use. For us not to do the same thing is simply
> foolish.

Exactly, the petrochemical industry uses lots of oil.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2007-11-08, > wrote:
> > Electric transportation will never be viable until and unless a dramatic
> > advance in battery technology is made that will enable electric cars
> > to go 200-400 miles and power all the trucks on the interstate.

> To be pedantic, *personal* electric transportation. Over here in
> Rightpondia, electric transportation has been viable for frieght and
> mass transport for decades. Here's a picture of such transport hauling a
> load of frieght:
> http://jasonrodhouse.fotopic.net/p43333298.html

Sure, it works great in some circumstances, especially when the
distances are trivial.

How do you get lettuce from the field in Fresno to the supermarket
in San Diego, much less Chicago?

> Aviation is probably the hardest nut to crack - it requires a portable
> and highly energy dense fuel - batteries probably never will crack it.
> It'll always need a fuel with similar energy density characteristics as
> diesel or gasoline.

> --
> From the sunny Isle of Man.
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Montblack > wrote:
> ("Judah" wrote)
> > So illuminate. What exactly is the scope of what's happening in
> > (industrial) China?


> Phenomenal growth and potential for more growth.

Phenomenal growth by selling at a loss with potential for a total
economic crash.

China can't sell at a loss long enough to drive all the competition
out of business, part of it maybe, but not all of it.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote: About the wonders of electic trains.

Yes it is the American persepctive but you need to realize a little more
American perspective.

The distances here are just plain longer than what you are dealing with in
Europe. The straight line distance between Paris and Berlin ~450 miles. In
the US that would get you from New York to Detroit. To get to Los Angles
you'd have to go another 1900 miles. Which is further than the distance from
either the Northern tip of Denmark to the Southern end of Italy or from
Gibralter to the Polish border.

Would it be nice to have electric rail serving the majority of the US, hell
yes, but after WWII we decided a huge highway system would be the way to go
and it served us well and help make the US the worlds largest economy. But
trying to install an electric rail system now would be next to impossible.
It has become alost impossible to add to the interstate system we already
have.

And there is one big plus to highways over rail. We don't grind to a halt
every time a single union goes out on strike.

[kontiki]

Judah wrote:
>
> But supply is controlled by OPEC, not by free market forces, so your
> observations are skewed. OPEC magically cuts supply at Holiday periods to
> maximize profit taking. It happens now every holiday like clockwork. Google
> "holiday gas price increase" and read articles from NYTimes and Wash Post,
> and plenty of other sources that describe this phenomenon going back to 2004,
> and that's just when it became so blatant that we figured it out...
>

Well then isn't about time we start to replace more of these Opec-
controlled imported oil with more our own domestic production?

Oh that's right, we can't so that, that's Baaaaad! So let's just
keep whining about it.

Or perhaps if we all just pay a "carbon tax" maybe the problem will
just go away.

[[email protected]]

Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote:
> >> wrote in
> >> :
> >
> >> > There are no alternatives to oil.
> >> >
> >> > The electric grid uses a vanishingly small amount of oil.
> >> >
> >> > The transportation system uses a vanishingly small amount of
> >> > electricity.
> >
> >> Concerning ground transport, there's rail which nowadays is mostly
> >> electric. The combustion engine is really only indispensable in air
> >> and ship transport, as you say, and a fraction of ground transport
> >> which for various reasons can't be transferred to rail.
> >
> > Most rail is diesel electric; there is a diesel engine driving a
> > generator.
> >
> > There are no electrified rails or overhead wires between LA and
> > Chicago.

> OK you're writing from an American perspective. In Europe most long-
> and mid distance connections are electrified. You'll only see diesel
> traction on short sections. And all city transport is electric by
> definition. If the USA doesn't have the infrastructure in place, I say
> it's time to build it up. The next problem is to convince people to
> actually use it, i.e. to actually use it for private travel as well as
> commercial transports. The latter is a problem that Europe has too (if
> to a lesser extent).

OK your're writing from a European perspective.

You do realize most of our states are bigger than most of your countries?

Also, cities here are a bit different too.

It is all "city" from Santa Monica to San Bernardino, for example,
but they are about 60 miles apart.

> > Unless you run tracks from every distribution center to every local
> > retail outlet, rail can never be more than a small fraction of the
> > transportation system.

> Make that a large fraction, otherwhise I agree. But there's a lot of
> things you can do. You don't need trucks going 1000s of kilometers
> across the continent. Ship the stuff to the nearest railway station and
> let the trains bring it to the destination city, then ship it by truck
> the small distance to wherever it's needed. Build factories close to
> railway lines and vice versa, so the last mile gets shorter or
> disappears altogether. Commuting in big cities can be done entirely by
> public transport, no need at all to have lots of freeways cut through
> the suburbs. etc. etc.

Both my wife and I commute over 50 miles one way. My next door neighbor
commutes 60.

Most US areas are spread out horizontally, not vertically as in Europe.

The vertical places, like New York, are few and far between.

> Of course we'll need the supermarket delivered by truck, we need
> ambulance cars, police cars, people in rural areas will need cars for
> their daily needs, and city dwellers will want to drive to their
> weekend destinations. But we can shift the weight a lot if we want to.
> Private cars can become mostly leisure toys.

Not with 30 to 60 mile commutes being common for most places.

> > Rail is good for hauling bulk items, such as coal, over long distances
> > between major hubs.

> That is the American perspective again. :)

Of course, we have thousands of land miles to worry about.

I can drive all day in one direction without leaving my state.

> >> There are methods for making oil from coal. Somewhere I read that the
> >> process has been revived in China. If it's so uneconomical, why are
> >> they doing it?
> >
> > As I said before, such processes have been doable for about a half
> > century now.
> >
> > No one is doing it commercially because it is too expensive.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasol

OK, there's on start up.

With the current price of oil I wouldn't expect it to be too far in
the future for it to be generally viable.

> Regards

> --
> Excessive verbing weirds the language.
> >

> http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> Wolfgang Schwanke wrote: About the wonders of electic trains.

> Yes it is the American persepctive but you need to realize a little more
> American perspective.

> The distances here are just plain longer than what you are dealing with in
> Europe. The straight line distance between Paris and Berlin ~450 miles. In
> the US that would get you from New York to Detroit. To get to Los Angles
> you'd have to go another 1900 miles. Which is further than the distance from
> either the Northern tip of Denmark to the Southern end of Italy or from
> Gibralter to the Polish border.

> Would it be nice to have electric rail serving the majority of the US, hell
> yes, but after WWII we decided a huge highway system would be the way to go
> and it served us well and help make the US the worlds largest economy. But
> trying to install an electric rail system now would be next to impossible.
> It has become alost impossible to add to the interstate system we already
> have.

> And there is one big plus to highways over rail. We don't grind to a halt
> every time a single union goes out on strike.

And trucks can go over mountains that trains can't, which the US has
a lot of.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And trucks can go over mountains that trains can't, which the US has
> a lot of.

Trains cross the Rockies every day. What other mountains did you have in
mind?

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> ... after WWII we decided a huge highway system would be the way to go
> and it served us well and help make the US the worlds largest economy.

The highway system helped to do that? What leads you to that conclusion?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You do realize most of our states are bigger than most of your countries?

You do realize that Europeans have trains that can roll at 350 mph?

> It is all "city" from Santa Monica to San Bernardino, for example,
> but they are about 60 miles apart.

Europe has more civilization per square kilometer than the U.S.

> Both my wife and I commute over 50 miles one way. My next door neighbor
> commutes 60.

Paris covers that with its mass transit system.

> Most US areas are spread out horizontally, not vertically as in Europe.

Most European areas ore more horizontal than vertical; the skyscrapers are in
the U.S.

> Not with 30 to 60 mile commutes being common for most places.

People do that on mass transit here in Europe all the time (at least in
Paris).

> I can drive all day in one direction without leaving my state.

Actually, you'll cross half the continental United States in a full day of
continuous driving.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Sure, it works great in some circumstances, especially when the
> distances are trivial.

Distances aren't that much of a problem, and many electrified lines extend for
great distances.

Additionally, a small fraction of a network tends to handle a large fraction
of the traffic, and only that small fraction need be electrified.

The advantage of electrification is that you can haul heavier loads with
electric locomotives.

[Mxsmanic]

Montblack writes:

> Phenomenal growth and potential for more growth.

With whose resources?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Phenomenal growth by selling at a loss with potential for a total
> economic crash.

China is in much better shape than the U.S. in terms of risks of a crash.

> China can't sell at a loss long enough to drive all the competition
> out of business, part of it maybe, but not all of it.

What competition?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> And trucks can go over mountains that trains can't, which the US has
>> a lot of.
>
> Trains cross the Rockies every day. What other mountains did you have in
> mind?

Why, you gonna go out and scale them, fjukkwit?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> ... after WWII we decided a huge highway system would be the way to go
>> and it served us well and help make the US the worlds largest economy.
>
> The highway system helped to do that? What leads you to that conclusion?
>

Good grief.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Sure, it works great in some circumstances, especially when the
>> distances are trivial.
>
> Distances aren't that much of a problem, and many electrified lines
> extend for great distances.
>
> Additionally, a small fraction of a network tends to handle a large
> fraction of the traffic, and only that small fraction need be
> electrified.
>
> The advantage of electrification is that you can haul heavier loads
> with electric locomotives.
>


Wrong again fjukkwit.


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Phenomenal growth by selling at a loss with potential for a total
>> economic crash.
>
> China is in much better shape than the U.S. in terms of risks of a crash.
>
>> China can't sell at a loss long enough to drive all the competition
>> out of business, part of it maybe, but not all of it.
>
> What competition?
>

Idiot


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Montblack writes:
>
>> Phenomenal growth and potential for more growth.
>
> With whose resources?
>

Not your's anyway.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > And trucks can go over mountains that trains can't, which the US has
> > a lot of.

> Trains cross the Rockies every day. What other mountains did you have in
> mind?

Hot flash for you; there are only a few places through the Rockies
where you can get a shallow enough grade for trains to make it.

There are lots of places through the Rockies where trucks can go
through.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[AES]

In article >,
wrote:

>
> Hot flash for you; there are only a few places through the Rockies
> where you can get a shallow enough grade for trains to make it.
>
> There are lots of places through the Rockies where trucks can go
> through.
>

Doesn't Europe have some Alps and stuff like that -- don't they use a
concept called tunnels???

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> ... after WWII we decided a huge highway system would be the way to
>> go and it served us well and help make the US the worlds largest
>> economy.
>
> The highway system helped to do that? What leads you to that
> conclusion?

Knowledge of things other than having my finger up my ass.

[Thomas Borchert]

Nomen,

> And, BTW, it's total stupidity to "rebuild" a country you went to war with.
>

Not if companies the vice president is involved with profit immensely.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Nomen,
>
>> And, BTW, it's total stupidity to "rebuild" a country you went to war
>> with.
>>
>
> Not if companies the vice president is involved with profit immensely.
>

Honestly. in many places he'd be before a jury.


Bertie

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Bertie the Bunyip > posted:

> Thomas Borchert > wrote in
> :
>
>> Nomen,
>>
>>> And, BTW, it's total stupidity to "rebuild" a country you went to
>>> war with.
>>>
>>
>> Not if companies the vice president is involved with profit
>> immensely.
>>
>
> Honestly. in many places he'd be before a jury.
>
If Kucinich got his way, he'd be before a jury here, too.

There's a lot to like about that guy.

Neil

[F. Baum]

> > > And trucks can go over mountains that trains can't, which the US has
> > > a lot of.
> > Trains cross the Rockies every day. What other mountains did you have in
> > mind?
>
> Hot flash for you; there are only a few places through the Rockies
> where you can get a shallow enough grade for trains to make it.
>
> There are lots of places through the Rockies where trucks can go
> through.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
I have seen where they put truck trailers on top of rail cars. Does
this increase the number of accesible passes for trains

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in news:Rc3Zi.16124$4V6.7861
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

> Recently, Bertie the Bunyip > posted:
>
>> Thomas Borchert > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Nomen,
>>>
>>>> And, BTW, it's total stupidity to "rebuild" a country you went to
>>>> war with.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not if companies the vice president is involved with profit
>>> immensely.
>>>
>>
>> Honestly. in many places he'd be before a jury.
>>
> If Kucinich got his way, he'd be before a jury here, too.
>
> There's a lot to like about that guy.

Unfortunately, he hasn't a hope in hell.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

AES > wrote:
> In article >,
> wrote:

> >
> > Hot flash for you; there are only a few places through the Rockies
> > where you can get a shallow enough grade for trains to make it.
> >
> > There are lots of places through the Rockies where trucks can go
> > through.
> >

> Doesn't Europe have some Alps and stuff like that -- don't they use a
> concept called tunnels???

Like everyone else, only if they absolutely have to as tunnel are
expensive.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

F. Baum > wrote:

> > > > And trucks can go over mountains that trains can't, which the US has
> > > > a lot of.
> > > Trains cross the Rockies every day. What other mountains did you have in
> > > mind?
> >
> > Hot flash for you; there are only a few places through the Rockies
> > where you can get a shallow enough grade for trains to make it.
> >
> > There are lots of places through the Rockies where trucks can go
> > through.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> I have seen where they put truck trailers on top of rail cars. Does
> this increase the number of accesible passes for trains

No, you have to put the train on top of the truck.

It's the wheels, even with sand.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jay Honeck]

> The problem is that the majority of Americans who write here are right
> wing "right or wrong my country" "screw all foreigners" types. That
> observation is not anti-US, it's anti-bigotry. If you were all a bit
> more moderate there wouldn't be an urge to jump on it every time. We
> know there are moderate Americans around, but they aren't writing here.

That would be funny if it weren't so sad.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in news:Gh4Zi.6439$ww2.544
@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net:

> Recently, Bertie the Bunyip > posted:
>
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in
>> news:Rc3Zi.16124$4V6.7861 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:
>>
>>> Recently, Bertie the Bunyip > posted:
>>>
>>>> Thomas Borchert > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Nomen,
>>>>>
>>>>>> And, BTW, it's total stupidity to "rebuild" a country you went to
>>>>>> war with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not if companies the vice president is involved with profit
>>>>> immensely.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Honestly. in many places he'd be before a jury.
>>>>
>>> If Kucinich got his way, he'd be before a jury here, too.
>>>
>>> There's a lot to like about that guy.
>>
>> Unfortunately, he hasn't a hope in hell.
>>
> Of course not. We can't afford to have a leader with integrity.

Unthinkable. Plus, Nader endorsed him. This would seem to indicate he
has at least half a brain. while this is tolerated by the democrats, at
least, it;s not actively encouraged. But the final nail in his coffin is
he has imagination. You might as well try and get someone like Thomas
Jefferson elected. Not a hope.


Bertie

[Thomas Borchert]

Bertie,

> >
> > Not if companies the vice president is involved with profit immensely.
> >
>
> Honestly. in many places he'd be before a jury.
>

Man, you gotta do something about those European knee-jerk American hater
comments of yours ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
>
>> >
>> > Not if companies the vice president is involved with profit
>> > immensely.
>> >
>>
>> Honestly. in many places he'd be before a jury.
>>
>
> Man, you gotta do something about those European knee-jerk American
> hater comments of yours ;-)


You're making assumptions there.

One of my favorite games is "Who's got the Bunyip?"


I've been said to be from many places..

One of the best was being traced to Borneo. I've been spotted in France,
Britain, Germany, Japan, Australia, and just about every US state..

World's too small to be labeled like that these days. It only takes hours
for one gang of fascist ****s to affect the innocent halfway around the
world these days..



Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Montblack > wrote:
>> ("Judah" wrote)
>> > So illuminate. What exactly is the scope of what's happening in
>> > (industrial) China?
>
>
>> Phenomenal growth and potential for more growth.
>
> Phenomenal growth by selling at a loss with potential for a total
> economic crash.
>
> China can't sell at a loss long enough to drive all the competition
> out of business, part of it maybe, but not all of it.

You think China is selling for a loss? That isn't my take of it.

They sell cheap because they are labor intensive, and their labor is dirt
cheap... Pennies on the dollar of what employers in the US pay. Add to
that, they have little control on emissions, and disposal of hazardous
waste. There is no OSHA to look out for employee work conditions, and they
are in many cases deplorable. On top of it, they use the cheapest material
to do the job, and mostly, cheaper materials than are needed to do the job.
Much of their steel is of such low quality, that it is unsuitable for any
heavy use for any reasonable period of time.

Eventually, all of these things will turn around. Just as how in the 60's
"Made in Japan" meant that it was probably junk, they turned it all around,
to the point that their goods are generally very high in quality. The cheap
production turned to another developing part of the world, and the cycle
repeats itself.; again and again.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:



they have little control on emissions, and disposal of
> hazardous waste.

Bit like New jersey.

There is no OSHA to look out for employee work
> conditions, and they are in many cases deplorable.


Bit like the meat packing industry.


On top of it, they
> use the cheapest material to do the job,

Bit like the auto industry.


>
> Eventually, all of these things will turn around. Just as how in the
> 60's "Made in Japan" meant that it was probably junk, they turned it
> all around,


Already have in many cases. I bought a musical instrument made in china
that's a direct ripoff of a US product and it's made of very high quality
material and very good workmanship. It's about 85% as good as the original
and cost about 10% of the price..


Bertie

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Bertie the Bunyip > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in
> news:Rc3Zi.16124$4V6.7861 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:
>
>> Recently, Bertie the Bunyip > posted:
>>
>>> Thomas Borchert > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Nomen,
>>>>
>>>>> And, BTW, it's total stupidity to "rebuild" a country you went to
>>>>> war with.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not if companies the vice president is involved with profit
>>>> immensely.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Honestly. in many places he'd be before a jury.
>>>
>> If Kucinich got his way, he'd be before a jury here, too.
>>
>> There's a lot to like about that guy.
>
> Unfortunately, he hasn't a hope in hell.
>
Of course not. We can't afford to have a leader with integrity.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Hot flash for you; there are only a few places through the Rockies
> where you can get a shallow enough grade for trains to make it.

You don't need that many places.

[[email protected]]

Morgans > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Montblack > wrote:
> >> ("Judah" wrote)
> >> > So illuminate. What exactly is the scope of what's happening in
> >> > (industrial) China?
> >
> >
> >> Phenomenal growth and potential for more growth.
> >
> > Phenomenal growth by selling at a loss with potential for a total
> > economic crash.
> >
> > China can't sell at a loss long enough to drive all the competition
> > out of business, part of it maybe, but not all of it.

> You think China is selling for a loss? That isn't my take of it.

> They sell cheap because they are labor intensive, and their labor is dirt
> cheap... Pennies on the dollar of what employers in the US pay. Add to
> that, they have little control on emissions, and disposal of hazardous
> waste. There is no OSHA to look out for employee work conditions, and they
> are in many cases deplorable. On top of it, they use the cheapest material
> to do the job, and mostly, cheaper materials than are needed to do the job.
> Much of their steel is of such low quality, that it is unsuitable for any
> heavy use for any reasonable period of time.

> Eventually, all of these things will turn around. Just as how in the 60's
> "Made in Japan" meant that it was probably junk, they turned it all around,
> to the point that their goods are generally very high in quality. The cheap
> production turned to another developing part of the world, and the cycle
> repeats itself.; again and again.

That's part of it, but if Chinese companies were selling at a profit
they would be able to service their bank loans, which they can't.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Hot flash for you; there are only a few places through the Rockies
>> where you can get a shallow enough grade for trains to make it.
>
> You don't need that many places.
>

How would you know mr never-leaves-his-bedroom?


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> That's part of it, but if Chinese companies were selling at a profit
> they would be able to service their bank loans, which they can't.

I've seen worse: The American government cannot survive without borrowing from
the Chinese.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> Actually, you'll cross half the continental United States in a full day of
> continuous driving.

It is good to know you are as geographically challenged, along with your
other challenges.

New York to Los Angels is 2,778 miles, and expedia lists it as 39 hours 55
minutes.

So in round numbers, driving that distance means you will be averaging 70
miles per hour.

Somewhere in there, you have to eat, take restroom breaks, fuel the vehicle,
and deal with traffic.

Most people on a long trip can average no more than 60 mph, for stops, not
including sleep.

That takes the drive time up to over 46 hours.

So you only need to sleep for 2 hours out of the 48 hours to drive across
the country. What a man!

Why don't you take that trip sometime? I'll not lose any sleep about them
finding you run off the road, asleep at the wheel.

Oh, never mind - you don't drive.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Hot flash for you; there are only a few places through the Rockies
>> where you can get a shallow enough grade for trains to make it.
>
> You don't need that many places.
>


Fjukkwit,.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> That's part of it, but if Chinese companies were selling at a profit
>> they would be able to service their bank loans, which they can't.
>
> I've seen worse: The American government cannot survive without
> borrowing from the Chinese.



Seen worse? What, in your magic eight ball?


Bertie

[Marty Shapiro]

Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote in :

> wrote in :
>
>> Hot flash for you; there are only a few places through the Rockies
>> where you can get a shallow enough grade for trains to make it.
>
> Tunnels and bridges are a good idea.
>
> Regards
>

Actually, you can "stretch" the grade by using an elongated "S"
pattern to the rails. You do, however, need a wider space for the
track. The key is how many feet per mile (or meters per kilometer if you
prefer) that the track rises. By using an elongaged "S" pattern, the
length of track is greater for a given straight line distance, effectively
lowering the gradient which is what the friction between the wheels and
track require. A good example can be seen on the tracks between Sacramento
and Reno in the area of the Donner pass.

Of course the other solution to gradient is cogging.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote

> There are railway lines all across the Alps, and the rail densitiy on
> the Norwegian Fjell isn't bad for a country with such a low population
> density. It's certainly doable if one really wants to.

You just don't get it.

To put enough railroad tracks in the US to have even half the density of
tracks per square mile as the railroads have in Europe, or half the tracks
per population density in Europe, or half the _any_ way you want to measure
it, would take the gross domestic product -the ENTIRE- gross domestic
product of the WHOLE US for a whole decade, and still not have put a dent in
the project.

This country IS BIG......WAY ****ING BIG ! ! !

Why can't you Europeans get that through your damn heads?

Forget about it...unless you want to pay for it...then go right ahead.

Sheesh. Get a clue.
--
Jim in NC

P.S. Sorry for offending those of you with sensitive ears, and being the
rude American. I don't usually talk like this, but I couldn't take one more
clueless comment about how we should put in railroads like it works so well
in Europe. Not one more.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote >
> Not really. Europe as a continent is a bit larger than the USA.
>
>> The straight line distance between Paris and Berlin
>> ~450 miles. In the US that would get you from New York to Detroit.

Oh, so what all are you going to include; All of the old Soviet Union,
Siberia, the Middle East? Why don't you go for Asia, and North Africa, too.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Wolfgang Schwanke"

Is that you, MX? Another sock puppet, MX? Really!

Merrily we troll along, troll along, troll along.
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Wolfgang Schwanke >
wrote:

> > But trying to install an electric rail system now
> > would be next to impossible.
>
> It would take a huge effort comparable to the buildup of the highway
> system, but why impossible?

Perhaps not impossible, but just the environmental impact analyses required
would result in decades of delays.

plus think about the carbon footprint from the actual process of
building an electricl rail system.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Wolfgang Schwanke >
wrote:

> wrote in :
>
> > Like everyone else, only if they absolutely have to as tunnel are
> > expensive.
>
> They are. But building a highway system with all the accessories you
> need to keep it running isn't exactly a bargain either. And that
> includes tunnelsl actually.

But the highway system is already built. It's not a comparison of
two alternatives (highway vs rail) starting from a clean sheet of paper.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Wolfgang Schwanke >
wrote:

> Someone argued that you need oil for ground transport, and several
> others objected that rail doesn't need oil. Then several other people
> objected in return arguing that the US was way too big for a railway
> network. But so far nobody explained why sheer size should be an
> obstacle at all, especially if it's possible to build a dense road
> network through the same country.

Another consideration is population density. There are large areas of
the USA where there are so few people that a rail system can't
achieve the efficiencies enjoyed by big cities.

A dense road network (which is not the dense in many areas) can be
appropriately sized for the amount of traffice expected. An 8 lane
highway is somewhat less than four times as expensive per mile as a
2 lane highway. A rail system costs the approximately the same
per mile whether it needs to carry lots of people or just a few, right?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 06:43:22 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:
>
>To put enough railroad tracks in the US to have even half the density of
>tracks per square mile as the railroads have in Europe, or half the tracks
>per population density in Europe, or half the _any_ way you want to measure
>it, would take the gross domestic product -the ENTIRE- gross domestic
>product of the WHOLE US for a whole decade, and still not have put a dent in
>the project.

We could always concentrate on a regional thought process where
railroads make sense...

Here in the Northeast, rails have made great sense for decades for
commuters. You can take the train from downtown NYC to Philly or DC
faster than you can fly on an airliner. Coast to coast, or intercity
passenger rail in Nevada, the Carolina hills, or Iowa? Not so much
sense there.

But for freight? Enormous amounts of bulky cargo, like cars, fuel
oil, propane, UPS trailers, multi-modal containers full of Chinese
goods, mail, building materials, etc... move daily by rail , all the
way across this big F'n country. When you see towns like Dunkirk, NY
on a UPS tracking manifest, you can be positive your package is on a
train. Lots of stuff destined for the east coast arrives from China
at west coast ports.

Rails make enough economic sense that 100 year old bridges and tunnels
are being rebuilt at great expense, so double stack container trains
can run directly in and out of North Jersey and South Eastern NY.
Each train has the potential to take 100's of trucks off the road
along the overcrowded feeder roads.

Short freight runs can make lots of sense, too. In my enviro-weenie
part of Connecticut, some towns have sewer systems with no processing
plant. Nobody wants to build new sewage plants along the banks of the
CT River or the shores of Long Island Sound. Where does the
collected crap go? Into large tank cars, which are delivered to a
distant processing plant several times a week. Three trains a week
along the Providence and Worcester Railroad replace at least 100 truck
trips along crowded highways, with lower fuel and labor costs. Locals
call this train "The Sewer Chief"! <G>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"B A R R Y" <> wrote
>
> We could always concentrate on a regional thought process where
> railroads make sense...

I have no problem with that concept. But...

> Here in the Northeast, rails have made great sense for decades for
> commuters. You can take the train from downtown NYC to Philly or DC
> faster than you can fly on an airliner. Coast to coast, or intercity
> passenger rail in Nevada, the Carolina hills, or Iowa? Not so much
> sense there.

Yes, but you still probably need to use a car to start the trip from the
suburbs into the cities, because there is no rail feeder system to get the
people collected from wide and far to take the lines into the cities.

Unless it is a pretty long distance from the suburb to the city, it makes
less sense to drive to the station, find a place to park, walk to the
station, and wait for the train. After doing all of that, it almost is
faster to stay in the car for the entire trip, unless like I said, it is a
pretty long distance.

> But for freight? Enormous amounts of bulky cargo, like cars, fuel
> oil, propane, UPS trailers, multi-modal containers full of Chinese
> goods, mail, building materials, etc... move daily by rail , all the
> way across this big F'n country.

But yet, the rail freight needs to be subsidized, to stay competitive.

> Where does the
> collected crap go? Into large tank cars, which are delivered to a
> distant processing plant several times a week. Three trains a week
> along the Providence and Worcester Railroad replace at least 100 truck
> trips along crowded highways, with lower fuel and labor costs. Locals
> call this train "The Sewer Chief"! <G>

That is a new piece of trivia, to me! Sounds like a perfect job for trains;
hauling a bunch of ****! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> You just don't get it.
>
> To put enough railroad tracks in the US to have even half the density of
> tracks per square mile as the railroads have in Europe, or half the tracks
> per population density in Europe, or half the _any_ way you want to measure
> it, would take the gross domestic product -the ENTIRE- gross domestic
> product of the WHOLE US for a whole decade, and still not have put a dent in
> the project.
>
> This country IS BIG......WAY ****ING BIG ! ! !
>
> Why can't you Europeans get that through your damn heads?

Perhaps because it isn't true.

Highways are far more expensive per mile than railways, and yet the United
States is covered with them, so clearly cost is not the obstacle to a denser
railway network in the U.S. Part of it is a fondness for automobiles and
trucks, and part of it is the Not Invented Here syndrome.

The United States _did_ have quite a railway system at one time, and you could
go just about anywhere on passenger trains. But the railways couldn't make
the profits they wanted with passenger service, and so they abandoned it.
European systems often operate at cost or at a loss, on the theory that a good
railway infrastructure amortizes its cost in intangible ways. The U.S. wants
to see a direct bottom-line profit from every activity, and the idea of
something being generally good for the country rarely seems to occur to
anyone.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Noel writes:

> Another consideration is population density. There are large areas of
> the USA where there are so few people that a rail system can't
> achieve the efficiencies enjoyed by big cities.

But exactly the same thing can be said of a highway system. An interstate
leading to some tiny village is just as much a waste as a railway passing
through it, only the highway is (much) more expensive.

> A dense road network (which is not the dense in many areas) can be
> appropriately sized for the amount of traffice expected. An 8 lane
> highway is somewhat less than four times as expensive per mile as a
> 2 lane highway. A rail system costs the approximately the same
> per mile whether it needs to carry lots of people or just a few, right?

Yes, which means that in all but the lightest traffic areas, a railway is more
economical to build. It doesn't take much to lay ballast and track; it's only
a bit more complicated than a two-lane road.

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> Yes, but you still probably need to use a car to start the trip from the
> suburbs into the cities, because there is no rail feeder system to get the
> people collected from wide and far to take the lines into the cities.

Railways can serve city centers _and_ suburban stations.

> But yet, the rail freight needs to be subsidized, to stay competitive.

No, it does not. Rail freight is very profitable. Ask the Union Pacific,
which has been making big money at it for decades.

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> Is that you, MX?

No. Wolfgang Schwanke has been posting under that name for some twenty years,
and he disagrees with me more often than not.

As hard as it may be to accept, it's possible for more than one person on
USENET to disagree with you.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Noel writes:

> Perhaps not impossible, but just the environmental impact analyses required
> would result in decades of delays.
>
> plus think about the carbon footprint from the actual process of
> building an electricl rail system.

It's almost trivial compared to the impact and footprint of a highway system,
so that argument doesn't work, either.

Americans don't have such a system because, for various reasons, they simply
don't want one. But it's entirely feasible, efficient, and practical.

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> It is good to know you are as geographically challenged, along with your
> other challenges.
>
> New York to Los Angels is 2,778 miles, and expedia lists it as 39 hours 55
> minutes.

Twenty-four hours multiplied by 65 mph is 1560 statute miles, or roughly 56%
of the cross-country total distance.

> So in round numbers, driving that distance means you will be averaging 70
> miles per hour.

See above.

> Somewhere in there, you have to eat, take restroom breaks, fuel the vehicle,
> and deal with traffic.

Yes, so? Add an hour.

> Most people on a long trip can average no more than 60 mph, for stops, not
> including sleep.
>
> That takes the drive time up to over 46 hours.
>
> So you only need to sleep for 2 hours out of the 48 hours to drive across
> the country. What a man!

All you need is more than one driver in the car. People do this all the time.

> Why don't you take that trip sometime?

Driving long distances is boring.

> Oh, never mind - you don't drive.

Where I live, we have mass transportation that makes driving unnecessary.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Morgans writes:
>
>> It is good to know you are as geographically challenged, along with
>> your other challenges.
>>
>> New York to Los Angels is 2,778 miles, and expedia lists it as 39
>> hours 55 minutes.
>
> Twenty-four hours multiplied by 65 mph is 1560 statute miles, or
> roughly 56% of the cross-country total distance.
>
>> So in round numbers, driving that distance means you will be
>> averaging 70 miles per hour.
>
> See above.
>
>> Somewhere in there, you have to eat, take restroom breaks, fuel the
>> vehicle, and deal with traffic.
>
> Yes, so? Add an hour.
>
>> Most people on a long trip can average no more than 60 mph, for
>> stops, not including sleep.
>>
>> That takes the drive time up to over 46 hours.
>>
>> So you only need to sleep for 2 hours out of the 48 hours to drive
>> across the country. What a man!
>
> All you need is more than one driver in the car. People do this all
> the time.
>
>> Why don't you take that trip sometime?
>
> Driving long distances is boring.

You're an idiot.

>
>> Oh, never mind - you don't drive.
>
> Where I live, we have mass transportation that makes driving
> unnecessary.
>

What, you have a shuttle bus to the bathroom?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Morgans writes:
>
>> Is that you, MX?
>
> No. Wolfgang Schwanke has been posting under that name for some
> twenty years, and he disagrees with me more often than not.
>
> As hard as it may be to accept, it's possible for more than one person
> on USENET to disagree with you.


But for impossible to find one who agrees with you.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bob Noel writes:
>
>> Perhaps not impossible, but just the environmental impact analyses
>> required would result in decades of delays.
>>
>> plus think about the carbon footprint from the actual process of
>> building an electricl rail system.
>
> It's almost trivial compared to the impact and footprint of a highway
> system, so that argument doesn't work, either.


Wrong diillhole

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bob Noel writes:
>
>> Another consideration is population density. There are large areas
>> of the USA where there are so few people that a rail system can't
>> achieve the efficiencies enjoyed by big cities.
>
> But exactly the same thing can be said of a highway system. An
> interstate leading to some tiny village is just as much a waste as a
> railway passing through it, only the highway is (much) more expensive.


How would you know, did you try it with your micro machines set?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Morgans writes:
>
>> Yes, but you still probably need to use a car to start the trip from
>> the suburbs into the cities, because there is no rail feeder system
>> to get the people collected from wide and far to take the lines into
>> the cities.
>
> Railways can serve city centers _and_ suburban stations.
>
>> But yet, the rail freight needs to be subsidized, to stay
>> competitive.
>
> No, it does not. Rail freight is very profitable. Ask the Union
> Pacific, which has been making big money at it for decades.

What, you friends with the union pacific, or did you just get a new Thomas
th eTank engine set?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Morgans writes:
>
>> You just don't get it.
>>
>> To put enough railroad tracks in the US to have even half the density
>> of tracks per square mile as the railroads have in Europe, or half
>> the tracks per population density in Europe, or half the _any_ way
>> you want to measure it, would take the gross domestic product -the
>> ENTIRE- gross domestic product of the WHOLE US for a whole decade,
>> and still not have put a dent in the project.
>>
>> This country IS BIG......WAY ****ING BIG ! ! !
>>
>> Why can't you Europeans get that through your damn heads?
>
> Perhaps because it isn't true.


You wouldn't know true if it bit you in the ass.

if you know half about railways what you know about flying you know zip.


bertie

[[email protected]]

Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > OK your're writing from a European perspective.
> >
> > You do realize most of our states are bigger than most of your
> > countries?

> How does that make efficient rail services impossible?

> > Also, cities here are a bit different too.

> In some ways yes, in others not so much. I don't dispute that a rail
> network has to be adapted to the local conditions.

> > It is all "city" from Santa Monica to San Bernardino, for example,
> > but they are about 60 miles apart.

> Europe has several "cities" of comparable sizes, for example Randstad,
> the Ruhr conurbation, and some of the large metropolis like Paris,
> London, Moscow come close.

> > Both my wife and I commute over 50 miles one way. My next door
> > neighbor commutes 60.

> So?

> >> But we can shift the weight a lot if we want
> >> to. Private cars can become mostly leisure toys.
> >
> > Not with 30 to 60 mile commutes being common for most places.

> Why not?

> Regards

Because the US isn't a large number of people going to a small number
of places, it is small numbers of people going to a huge number of
places.

There are no major hub sites.

The highway system is a giant web with an enourmous number of branches
and more than just freeways.

As a matter of fact, both the wife and I could take public transportation
to work. The only problem is the trip would be about 4 hours each way.

To work, public transportation has to go everywhere the public wants
to go, which means it has to stop a lot.

And again, there are virtually zero hub points where you could go
quickly.

There is a reason the freeways have on/off ramps at about a mile apart.

Los Angeles does have light rail along the few high traffic corridors
where it makes some sort of sense.

For most of California, and most of the country, such a system makes
no sense.

Just because something works in one place does not mean it will work
in another.

This is the problem with all the one-size-fits-all thinking by
people that are going to solve all the worlds problems if only
their pet scheme were implemented.

Public transportation works in the New York area, many parts of
the east coast, and in small areas of the west coast.

It doesn't in the majority of the country other than local, urban
buses.

Heavy rail works to get bulk cargo between major hubs. It doesn't
work to get all the stuff that needs to be transported everywhere.

Solar power works pretty well in Arizona, not for crap in North
Dakota.

Tidal power generation doesn't work in Colorado, though it might
in Alaska.

The bottom line is if some system were economically practical, it
would already exist or someone would be working on building it.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:43:42 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:
>
>Yes, but you still probably need to use a car to start the trip from the
>suburbs into the cities, because there is no rail feeder system to get the
>people collected from wide and far to take the lines into the cities.

There are busses, and some folks get dropped off by a spouse. The
lines that serve my area, Metro-North and Shoreline East, have
extremely heavy ridership.

>Unless it is a pretty long distance from the suburb to the city, it makes
>less sense to drive to the station, find a place to park, walk to the
>station, and wait for the train. After doing all of that, it almost is
>faster to stay in the car for the entire trip, unless like I said, it is a
>pretty long distance.

Unless it's NYC traffic and parking fees. It's not the distance that
matters.

>But yet, the rail freight needs to be subsidized, to stay competitive.

In some areas, with underused branch lines, that is certainly true.
Rising fuel prices and increased highway congestion, and their effects
on trucking costs, may change that.

>That is a new piece of trivia, to me! Sounds like a perfect job for trains;
>hauling a bunch of ****! <g>

It's a crappy job, but someone has to do it. <G>

[Angelo Campanella[_2_]]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> There are methods for making oil from coal. Somewhere I read that the
> process has been revived in China. If it's so uneconomical, why are
> they doing it?

That's easy:

They are not so studpid as the US as to expect that it will never be
feasible, or that there will not be security challenges involving oil.
They want to have the tecnology and a few plants in their hands "just in
case". Their coal reservce is similar to that of the US; plenty. The
price of coal produced gasoline (also done by Germany in WWII after we
bombed the Ploesti Oil fields and refineries) is in today's economy
about $5/gallon. It rivals pure biodiesel, and probably unsupported (no
guv grants) ethanol as well.

The sheer size of China's population and their acceleration into the
industrial age almost guarantees a serious dependence on hyrdrocabon
fuels, and that will only increase with time. Same goes for India.

Ang. C.

[[email protected]]

Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Because the US isn't a large number of people going to a small number
> > of places, it is small numbers of people going to a huge number of
> > places.

> I think this is true everywhere.

> > There are no major hub sites.
> >
> > The highway system is a giant web with an enourmous number of branches
> > and more than just freeways.
> >
> > As a matter of fact, both the wife and I could take public
> > transportation to work. The only problem is the trip would be about 4
> > hours each way.

> Maybe the transport system in your area has room for improvement.

Yep, we need more lanes on the freeways.

> > To work, public transportation has to go everywhere the public wants
> > to go, which means it has to stop a lot.

> You can have fast routes (rail, underground, accelerated tram) with few
> inbetween stops for the long distances, and slow routes (bus, ordinary
> tram) for short ones.

Point totally and absolutely missed.

There are NO long distance routes with a large number of people
going from point A to point B.

There are thousands upon thousands of points with small numbers of
people (or goods) going between any given two and it is two dimensional,
not a one dimensional line.

> > Los Angeles does have light rail along the few high traffic corridors
> > where it makes some sort of sense.
> >
> > For most of California, and most of the country, such a system makes
> > no sense.

> For distances like 60 miles as you said, you want heavy rail of course.
> Light rail makes sense within a city.

60 miles isn't concidered a long distance here.

> > Just because something works in one place does not mean it will work
> > in another.

> I'm not convinced that is the difference. There are lots of ways a
> public transport system can be laid out and meet demands of different
> settlement structures. But there is a cultural bias towards preferences
> of automobiles over rail (which is true here as well, just not as
> pronounced), and AFAICT an unawareness of what public transport can do
> because many Americans haven't ever seen an efficient system.

> > This is the problem with all the one-size-fits-all thinking by
> > people that are going to solve all the worlds problems if only
> > their pet scheme were implemented.

> I could give you the "one size fits all" back, but let's not sink to
> that level. The original discussion was about the necessity to get away
> from oil because one day it'll be too expensive to run transport, and
> we were discussing alternatives. Don't you think the basic assumption
> is true, i.e. one day in the (hopefully distant) future oil will become
> so expensive that the majority of people won't be able to afford to run
> cars? If we agree on that, then it's a good idea to look for
> alternatives as soon as possible, because the end will come inevitably,
> and if we're not prepared for it we'll have major problems, perhaps
> even an economic breakdown. Alternative car propulsion technologies are
> one way, but many people seem to think they're not viable economically
> and/or technically. Public transport with a heavy focus on rail is a
> more realistic option. And now everyone screams "It won't ever work
> here". Hmm.

Public transport with a heavy focus on rail is totally unrealistic,
at least in an area like southern California.

> > Public transportation works in the New York area, many parts of
> > the east coast, and in small areas of the west coast.
> >
> > It doesn't in the majority of the country other than local, urban
> > buses.

> But that is not so out of necessity, but because of conscious (or maybe
> not so conscious) decisions not to invest in it.

No, it is because it doesn't work in spread out areas.

> New York made conscious decisions to invest in transport and to keep it
> running. Other places haven't. My experience of the US is very limited,
> but I've been to Honolulu out of all places. I was told by the locals
> that their public transport system is considered good compared to other
> American places. I used it and I thought it was abysmal. It could
> easily be improved to a much better service level. They have only
> buses, nothing else. For a city that size that's already shameful. And
> the buses run only every 30 mins at best (IIRC). And there's no
> information at the bus stops, neither about time tables nor about the
> network. If you want to navigate it, you need to get your information
> beforehand from other sources.

Public transport works in New York because you have lots of people
going to the same small number of places.

> > Heavy rail works to get bulk cargo between major hubs. It doesn't
> > work to get all the stuff that needs to be transported everywhere.

> Same thing

Nonsense.

Have you the slightest clue how many "places" to get things to there
are in a place like southern California?

> > Solar power works pretty well in Arizona, not for crap in North
> > Dakota.
> >
> > Tidal power generation doesn't work in Colorado, though it might
> > in Alaska.
> >

> We agree there are technological and economical factors against most
> forms of "green" energy. I never argued for those. I'm looking for
> replacements which allow us to run existing machines, but at the same
> time look for more economical uses where they can be avoided.

> Regards

> --
> Push Pull Solutions f?r die Client Server Umgebung


> http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[ThomasH]

On 07-Nov-07 6:47, aluckyguess wrote:
> The worst part is I dont see any end in sight.

Of course there is an end!

We have an intrepid president, who will intervene at once
and tell that we refuse to pay $98 for a $10 article.
The production will be bumped up, till normality will
return. He will of course send army, if negotiations
will not help. Finally, he lives from our taxes and has
our best interest at all times on his mind, even when he
is in the restroom.

I love this government, this influential standing with
other nations, foresight, impact on world market,
balanced budget with only 1.3 billion a day loss.
This devotion to the nation, its economical advancement,
stability and pursuit of happiness. Imagine: by the
end of his 2008 term we will have $4.5 per gallon gas,
$8 avgas, we will pay $1.6-$1.8 for an Euro, and we
will have increased national debt by mere 3,702 billions!

Nobody in the history of this country can even close
match such achievements. No problemo, our kids and
grandkids will pick up the tab. For generations to come.
And this is "the end" which I see clearly. Regrettably
a percentage of Americans failed to see it 3 years ago,
despite writing on the wall, in big capital letters...

Thomas


> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Well, boys and girls, here it comes. $4/gallon gas in America. This
>> will translate into $7/gallon avgas soon enough.
>>
>> Our last fly-in guest at the hotel was almost two weeks ago... (And
>> we just had our 28th consecutive sell-out weekend, so business is
>> booming...)
>>
>> :-(
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>
>

[Newps]

ThomasH wrote:


>
> I love this government, this influential standing with
> other nations, foresight, impact on world market,
> balanced budget with only 1.3 billion a day loss.
> This devotion to the nation, its economical advancement,
> stability and pursuit of happiness. Imagine: by the
> end of his 2008 term we will have $4.5 per gallon gas,
> $8 avgas, we will pay $1.6-$1.8 for an Euro, and we
> will have increased national debt by mere 3,702 billions!
>
> Nobody in the history of this country can even close
> match such achievements. No problemo, our kids and
> grandkids will pick up the tab. For generations to come.
> And this is "the end" which I see clearly. Regrettably
> a percentage of Americans failed to see it 3 years ago,
> despite writing on the wall, in big capital letters...



Read your history book. Been there, done that. Late 70's early 80's.
Quit your whining.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Newps > wrote in news:-NudnYeFoZIo8KvanZ2dnUVZ_h-
:

>
>
> ThomasH wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I love this government, this influential standing with
>> other nations, foresight, impact on world market,
>> balanced budget with only 1.3 billion a day loss.
>> This devotion to the nation, its economical advancement,
>> stability and pursuit of happiness. Imagine: by the
>> end of his 2008 term we will have $4.5 per gallon gas,
>> $8 avgas, we will pay $1.6-$1.8 for an Euro, and we
>> will have increased national debt by mere 3,702 billions!
>>
>> Nobody in the history of this country can even close
>> match such achievements. No problemo, our kids and
>> grandkids will pick up the tab. For generations to come.
>> And this is "the end" which I see clearly. Regrettably
>> a percentage of Americans failed to see it 3 years ago,
>> despite writing on the wall, in big capital letters...
>
>
>
> Read your history book. Been there, done that. Late 70's early 80's.
> Quit your whining.
>

There was a national debt of 3.7 trillion in the late '70s?


Bertie

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> ThomasH wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I love this government, this influential standing with
>> other nations, foresight, impact on world market,
>> balanced budget with only 1.3 billion a day loss.
>> This devotion to the nation, its economical advancement,
>> stability and pursuit of happiness. Imagine: by the
>> end of his 2008 term we will have $4.5 per gallon gas,
>> $8 avgas, we will pay $1.6-$1.8 for an Euro, and we
>> will have increased national debt by mere 3,702 billions!
>>
>> Nobody in the history of this country can even close
>> match such achievements. No problemo, our kids and
>> grandkids will pick up the tab. For generations to come.
>> And this is "the end" which I see clearly. Regrettably
>> a percentage of Americans failed to see it 3 years ago,
>> despite writing on the wall, in big capital letters...
>
>
>
> Read your history book. Been there, done that. Late 70's early 80's.
> Quit your whining.

And two or three years from now, when gas is $5 a gallon, and 100LL, if
available at all, will be $7, I'm sure he'll have some more alibi when
Shrillary and the Dem's run up the price and gas lines return with a
vengeance.

[Jay Honeck]

> There was a national debt of 3.7 trillion in the late '70s?

Nope.

Just like the sub-prime mortgage lending debacle, our national debt
WILL collapse. It's as inevitable as sand through an hourglass.

What makes me sick is that both the Democrats and the Republicans
(formerly the "balanced budget champions" of my youth) now run up the
deficit as a matter of course, but feel it necessary to blame each
other for the problem. Actually, the only difference between the two
parties is the *reason* they run up the debt. Democrats blame the
war, Republicans blame "entitlements" -- but neither side has ever
seen a tax they didn't adore, or a spending program they wouldn't hump
dry.

I say throw them all out, and start over.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Perhaps not impossible, but just the environmental impact analyses required
> would result in decades of delays.

Can you imagine? The environmentalists would absolutely have a
bird! There wouldn't be ten miles of track laid before some snail
darter or frog or "wetland" was "endangered", and the whole project
would grind to a halt.

Our new (paving in progress) 800-foot runway extension in Iowa City
alone has been 40 years in the making and required three separate
(ever more stringent) EPA studies. We're talking millions of dollars
-- for 800 feet of concrete.

I'm afraid the time to build giant transportation networks in the US
is long past. We have surrendered our government to the special
interests, and the bureaucrats are in command.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> There was a national debt of 3.7 trillion in the late '70s?
>
> Nope.
>
> Just like the sub-prime mortgage lending debacle, our national debt
> WILL collapse. It's as inevitable as sand through an hourglass.
>
> What makes me sick is that both the Democrats and the Republicans
> (formerly the "balanced budget champions" of my youth) now run up the
> deficit as a matter of course, but feel it necessary to blame each
> other for the problem. Actually, the only difference between the two
> parties is the *reason* they run up the debt. Democrats blame the
> war, Republicans blame "entitlements" -- but neither side has ever
> seen a tax they didn't adore, or a spending program they wouldn't hump
> dry.
>
> I say throw them all out, and start over.

I'm game, but it will never happen. Remember the old quote about the
fatal flaw of democracy:

Scottish professor Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1714-1778) of the University
of Edinburgh: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of
government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote
themselves largess from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result
that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always
followed by dictatorship."

And I think we are in the next to last stage outlined here:
http://www.apatheticvoter.com/Article_DownfallDemocracies.htm

Nobody will vote out THEIR congress critter as then someone else would
get more of the money. Everyone wants someone else to vote out their
congress critter first.

Matt

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> The argument is flawed because it rests on a number of wrong
> assumptions.

It has worked historically.

[F. Baum]

On Nov 10, 11:49 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
>
> And two or three years from now, when gas is $5 a gallon, and 100LL, if
> available at all, will be $7, I'm sure he'll have some more alibi when
> Shrillary and the Dem's run up the price and gas lines return with a
> vengeance.- Hide quoted text -
MXMatt, How are things at the mental hospital ? I see you have been
good and earned some internet priveleges today. Good to hear from you.

[ThomasH]

On 11-Nov-07 6:11, Matt Whiting wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> There was a national debt of 3.7 trillion in the late '70s?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Just like the sub-prime mortgage lending debacle, our national debt
>> WILL collapse. It's as inevitable as sand through an hourglass.
>>
>> What makes me sick is that both the Democrats and the Republicans
>> (formerly the "balanced budget champions" of my youth) now run up the
>> deficit as a matter of course, but feel it necessary to blame each
>> other for the problem. Actually, the only difference between the two
>> parties is the *reason* they run up the debt. Democrats blame the
>> war, Republicans blame "entitlements" -- but neither side has ever
>> seen a tax they didn't adore, or a spending program they wouldn't hump
>> dry.
>>
>> I say throw them all out, and start over.

Maybe its less about the parties and the reputation attached
to them, and more about people on the top and their teams?
I read Alan Greenspan's comments about Clinton and his fiscal
discipline. There was this democratic government, making
actually profit, what a concept, and as a sideline, spoiled
its own legacy by personal misbehavior of its leader.

In a long run I always prefer the team with the eye on the
ficus, the rest is barely a sideline.

Thomas

>
> I'm game, but it will never happen. Remember the old quote about the
> fatal flaw of democracy:
>
> Scottish professor Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1714-1778) of the University
> of Edinburgh: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of
> government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote
> themselves largess from the public treasury.
>
> From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
> promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result
> that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always
> followed by dictatorship."
>
> And I think we are in the next to last stage outlined here:
> http://www.apatheticvoter.com/Article_DownfallDemocracies.htm
>
> Nobody will vote out THEIR congress critter as then someone else would
> get more of the money. Everyone wants someone else to vote out their
> congress critter first.
>
> Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Wolfgang Schwanke >
wrote:

> > From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
> > promising the most benefits from the public treasury,
>
> The argument is flawed because it rests on a number of wrong
> assumptions.

such as?

>
> > with the result
> > that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always
> > followed by dictatorship."
>
> The German democracy collapsed after a period of very strict fiscal
> policy and fierce welfare cuts. Hitler took over a debt free government.

Note that loose fical policy is not the only possible cause of a collapse of
democracy.

Hitler took over a country desperate to overcome the humilitation of WWI

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[[email protected]]

On Nov 7, 8:28 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Well, boys and girls, here it comes. $4/gallon gas in America. This
> will translate into $7/gallon avgas soon enough.
>
> Our last fly-in guest at the hotel was almost two weeks ago... (And
> we just had our 28th consecutive sell-out weekend, so business is
> booming...)
>
> :-(
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Had one had the foresight to convert their assets to Euros in 2001,
oil would be about $60, thanks Drunkya...JG

[[email protected]]

On Nov 7, 4:05 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > > Alas, Jimmy Carter had the chance to fix this problem way back in
> > > 1979...
> > > --
>
> > Yeah, but whiney assholes like you stoped that, didncha?
>
> In 1979 I was a sophomore at the University of Wisconsin, majoring in
> English at the time. Even then, as a young, idealistic left-leaning
> college student, I knew that the peanut farmer from Georgia was
> screwing the pooch with Iran.
>
> If Carter had done something -- ANYTHING -- to right the hostage
> crisis, our current situation with radical Islam would be very
> different. Instead, he did...worse than nothing, and 28 years later
> we're facing a nuclear-armed Iran, run by the same idiots that hog-
> tied our diplomats for over 440 days.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

As opposed to Stalin who ran the Siberian Suites..JG

[[email protected]]

On Nov 9, 2:56 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Nomen,
>
> > no american lives at serious risk.
>
> One might argue that the deaths at the WTC (and all the deaths that
> ensued) were at least in part caused by such "risk free" US actions as
> you propose.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

And Florida GA schools..JG

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Wolfgang Schwanke >
wrote:

> Bob Noel > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >, Wolfgang Schwanke
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> > From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
> >> > promising the most benefits from the public treasury,
> >>
> >> The argument is flawed because it rests on a number of wrong
> >> assumptions.
> >
> > such as?
>
> 1. That the majority of voters will decide on egoistic motivations over
> other considerations

That does not appear to be a false assumption

> 2. That politicians actually do what they promise before elections

What? A politician that lies? ;-)

You don't have to listen to the lies, just look at the voting record. Very
few politicians in the USA get re-elected without bringing more and more
pork to their home districts.

> 3. That pro-welfare policies will always be implemented without also
> rising the taxes

That is not an assumption in play here. In fact, you can count on the
taxes being raised ("for the children") to pay for all the spending and
spending and spending and ....

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1194789238.207070.122700
@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

>> There was a national debt of 3.7 trillion in the late '70s?
>
> Nope.
>
> Just like the sub-prime mortgage lending debacle, our national debt
> WILL collapse. It's as inevitable as sand through an hourglass.
>
> What makes me sick is that both the Democrats and the Republicans
> (formerly the "balanced budget champions" of my youth) now run up the
> deficit as a matter of course, but feel it necessary to blame each
> other for the problem.

That's not entirely true.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt



Actually, the only difference between the two
> parties is the *reason* they run up the debt. Democrats blame the
> war, Republicans blame "entitlements" -- but neither side has ever
> seen a tax they didn't adore, or a spending program they wouldn't hump
> dry.
>
> I say throw them all out, and start over.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>
>> The argument is flawed because it rests on a number of wrong
>> assumptions.
>
> It has worked historically.
>

You're an idiot.


Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote
> in :
>
>> Scottish professor Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1714-1778) of the University
>> of Edinburgh: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of
>> government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote
>> themselves largess from the public treasury.
>>
>> From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
>> promising the most benefits from the public treasury,
>
> The argument is flawed because it rests on a number of wrong
> assumptions.

Such as? In any event, the trend in the USA is looking very much like
this forecast.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Bob Noel > wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Wolfgang Schwanke
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
>>>> promising the most benefits from the public treasury,
>>> The argument is flawed because it rests on a number of wrong
>>> assumptions.
>> such as?
>
> 1. That the majority of voters will decide on egoistic motivations over
> other considerations

This assumption seems to hold true most of the time. What evidence do
you have that it is a wrong assumption?

> 2. That politicians actually do what they promise before elections

I don't think it assumes that at all. In reality, the politicians tend
to do even more than they promise when it comes to spending money.


> 3. That pro-welfare policies will always be implemented without also
> rising the taxes

I don't see where this assumption is present, but even it it was
present, it still supports the trend towards a collapse as rising taxes
will eventually kill the economy and bankrupt the nation.

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote
>> in :
>>
>>> Scottish professor Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1714-1778) of the
>>> University of Edinburgh: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent
>>> form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they
>>> can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.
>>>
>>> From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
>>> promising the most benefits from the public treasury,
>>
>> The argument is flawed because it rests on a number of wrong
>> assumptions.
>
> Such as? In any event, the trend in the USA is looking very much like
> this forecast.
>

No, it isn't

Bertie

[Matt W. Barrow]

"F. Baum" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Nov 10, 11:49 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
> wrote:
>>
>> And two or three years from now, when gas is $5 a gallon, and 100LL, if
>> available at all, will be $7, I'm sure he'll have some more alibi when
>> Shrillary and the Dem's run up the price and gas lines return with a
>> vengeance.- Hide quoted text -
> MXMatt, How are things at the mental hospital ? I see you have been
> good and earned some internet priveleges today. Good to hear from you.

I see you're the same half-literate CS as always.

Better dash, I hear your mommy calling.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Jay Honeck >
>
>>What makes me sick is that both the Democrats and the Republicans
>>(formerly the "balanced budget champions" of my youth) now run up the
>>deficit as a matter of course, but feel it necessary to blame each
>>other for the problem. Actually, the only difference between the two
>>parties is the *reason* they run up the debt. Democrats blame the
>>war, Republicans blame "entitlements" -- but neither side has ever
>>seen a tax they didn't adore, or a spending program they wouldn't hump
>>dry.
>
> Yep. Both parties play the "Good cop...Bad cop" game against the citizen.
> What people aren't supposed to notice is that they're both COPS.
> The Republicans and Democrats only care about two things.
> 1) They get reelected and keep their job.
> 2) Everyone else in Congress is either a Democrat or Republican.
>
>>I say throw them all out, and start over.
>
> I'm with you.
> I'd much prefer a government in the hands of inexperienced, but
> intelligent
> and motivated individuals than the self serving hacks who have perfected
> the art of screwing the American people.
>
> Sadly, the stupid and lazy type is dominating the voter base on an
> exponentially
> increasing level. "Screw the rich" (which, btw, has become "anybody
> actually working
> to better their position in life") and "Save the idiot" are all you have
> to say to win an
> election.

Hear! Hear!

> I once though my retirement would be 20 acres in Florida and a
> conservative
> portfolio. Now, it's looking more like a villa in Costa Rica and a Swiss
> bank
> account.

Ditto!

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Wolfgang Schwanke >
wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
> > Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> >> Bob Noel > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >>> In article >, Wolfgang Schwanke
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
> >>>>> promising the most benefits from the public treasury,
> >>>> The argument is flawed because it rests on a number of wrong
> >>>> assumptions.
> >>> such as?
> >>
> >> 1. That the majority of voters will decide on egoistic motivations
> >> over other considerations
> >
> > This assumption seems to hold true most of the time. What evidence do
> > you have that it is a wrong assumption?
>
> First the burden of proof is on those who claim a specific behaviour,
> not those who disclaim it.

True. But you should be able to defend your own assertions made
in an effort to disclaim an assertion.


>
> Anyway I think I have evidence that it doesn't hold true, at least not
> all of the time: Voters have often and repeatedly voted for parties who
> advocate welfare cuts.

The arguement doesn't preclude some voters doing so, but it does
depend on the *majority* doing so more often than not.

Look at how the GOP politicians have been vilified for suggesting
smaller increases.

>
> >> 2. That politicians actually do what they promise before elections
> >
> > I don't think it assumes that at all.
>
> Yes it does. Even if 1. were true, if the politicians don't implement
> the welfare rises they promised earlier, it has no effect.

Entitlements have been going up and up and up in the USA. Cripes, any
so-called cuts have actually been increases smaller than the gimme crowd
wanted.

>
> > In reality, the politicians tend
> > to do even more than they promise when it comes to spending money.
>
> This is not true here :).

Why do you think "entitlements" in the USA have been going up every year?


>
> >> 3. That pro-welfare policies will always be implemented without also
> >> rising the taxes
> >
> > I don't see where this assumption is present,
>
> If spending and taxes rise evenly, there's no unbalanced budget, so no
> problem.

ouch. Of course there is a problem. There isn't an inexhaustable amount
of taxable income. duh

>
> > but even it it was
> > present, it still supports the trend towards a collapse as rising taxes
> > will eventually kill the economy and bankrupt the nation.
>
> Oh no. It's not a given that high taxes kill the economy. Example the
> Scandinavian countries: Generous welfare systems, excruciatingly high
> taxes (even by European standards), strong economies. Has worked for
> generations and shows no sign of caving in.

"generations"? They had a great economy through the two world wars did they?

You need to think on a longer scale. No one is suggesting that a collaspe
will happen in just a few years.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Matt Whiting]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>> Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>>> Bob Noel > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> In article >, Wolfgang Schwanke
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
>>>>>> promising the most benefits from the public treasury,
>>>>> The argument is flawed because it rests on a number of wrong
>>>>> assumptions.
>>>> such as?
>>> 1. That the majority of voters will decide on egoistic motivations
>>> over other considerations
>> This assumption seems to hold true most of the time. What evidence do
>> you have that it is a wrong assumption?
>
> First the burden of proof is on those who claim a specific behaviour,
> not those who disclaim it.
>
> Anyway I think I have evidence that it doesn't hold true, at least not
> all of the time: Voters have often and repeatedly voted for parties who
> advocate welfare cuts.

That supports the assumption. Since the majority of the population is
not (yet, anyway) on welfare, voting for cuts in welfare is voting in
their own self-interest. Thanks for providing me an example.


>>> 2. That politicians actually do what they promise before elections
>> I don't think it assumes that at all.
>
> Yes it does. Even if 1. were true, if the politicians don't implement
> the welfare rises they promised earlier, it has no effect.
>
>> In reality, the politicians tend
>> to do even more than they promise when it comes to spending money.
>
> This is not true here :).

I'm speaking in the context of the USA which I believe was the context
of Jay's original post.


>>> 3. That pro-welfare policies will always be implemented without also
>>> rising the taxes
>> I don't see where this assumption is present,
>
> If spending and taxes rise evenly, there's no unbalanced budget, so no
> problem.

There will be as you can only raise taxes so far. There is an upper
limit above which you no longer have a democracy and thus the original
argument holds. Once you become communist or socialist than the
original assertion is complete.


>> but even it it was
>> present, it still supports the trend towards a collapse as rising taxes
>> will eventually kill the economy and bankrupt the nation.
>
> Oh no. It's not a given that high taxes kill the economy. Example the
> Scandinavian countries: Generous welfare systems, excruciatingly high
> taxes (even by European standards), strong economies. Has worked for
> generations and shows no sign of caving in.

I don't consider the Scandinavian countries to be bastion of a great
economy, but maybe.... I seldom see them on any list of economic
significance. I'm also not terribly familiar with their governmental
systems. Are they true democracies?

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Bob Noel > wrote in
:

>
>
> "generations"? They had a great economy through the two world wars
> did they?
>

they did, actually.

>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Wolfgang Schwanke" < wrote

> You're still working on the assumption that welfare is a problem. It
> might be badly constructed here and there, but its existance as such is
> a benefit. It's really a necessity to create a somewhat evenly balanced
> wealth across the entire population, and to stabilise society including
> the economy. Without it there's risk of riots, revolutions or other
> turmoil.
>
Where the hell did I put my L00n mallet? Where is that damn thing when you
need it most?
--
Jim (stay the hell over there) in NC
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> :
>
>> The distances here are just plain longer than what you are dealing
>> with in Europe.
>
> Not really. Europe as a continent is a bit larger than the USA.
>
>> The straight line distance between Paris and Berlin
>> ~450 miles. In the US that would get you from New York to Detroit.
>
> How about Madrid - Moscow or Athens - Tromsø?

Well if you are going to play that game then you have to take Mexico and
Canada into the mix here. But I was giving you the benefit of counting EU
nations. If you'd like we could reduce the conversation to individual
countries on both sides.


>
>> To
>> get to Los Angles you'd have to go another 1900 miles. Which is
>> further than the distance from either the Northern tip of Denmark to
>> the Southern end of Italy or from Gibralter to the Polish border.
>
> Quite. But Europe is a bit larger than the examples you chose.
>
> One factor is that people tend to live their lives within one country,
> they don't really dash across the entire continent that much, and that
> contributes to overall shorter journey times. But that is changing as
> national borders become less relevant.
>

Exactly. And I gave you the benefit of considering the EU as a country.


>> Would it be nice to have electric rail serving the majority of the
>> US, hell yes, but after WWII we decided a huge highway system would
>> be the way to go
>
> Nothing wrong with that as such, but smashing the railway system at
> the same time (which AFAIK was better then than today, correct me if
> I'm wrong) wasn't really a good idea.
>
>> and it served us well and help make the US the worlds
>> largest economy.
>
> I don't know about that, but neglecting the rail system certainly
> wasn't economically sound.
>

It certainly was at the time.



>> But trying to install an electric rail system now
>> would be next to impossible.
>
> It would take a huge effort comparable to the buildup of the highway
> system, but why impossible?
>

We could probably have scheduled flight to Mars for the cost.


>> And there is one big plus to highways over rail. We don't grind to a
>> halt every time a single union goes out on strike.
>
> He :) Well they've stopped for the moment.
>

For the moment. They probably already have the next strike date on their
calenders.

[Jay Honeck]

> They started building their welfare system in the late 19th/early 20th
> century. At that time they were still comparatively poor as their
> economies were mostly agricultural. They got rich after WW2, and used
> that money to massively expand their welfare systems. The expansion
> stopped with the recessions in the 1990s and 2000s, so did the tax
> rises. Their budgets are now at equilibrium, and the economy is going
> strong once again.

The Western European welfare economies could only exist because they
lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the Soviet
Union. Not
having to spend money on self-defense is a wonderful thing, but don't
count
on it lasting for too many more "generations" -- cuz we're broke.

> You're still working on the assumption that welfare is a problem. It
> might be badly constructed here and there, but its existance as such is
> a benefit. It's really a necessity to create a somewhat evenly balanced
> wealth across the entire population, and to stabilise society including
> the economy. Without it there's risk of riots, revolutions or other
> turmoil.

Two things have destroyed the United States in my lifetime. Topping
the
list is out-of-control spending on "entitlements", which has caused
the
exponential growth of the bureacracy.

At some point (and I can't pinpoint the precise date) the 'crats in
the US
realized that it was THEY who were really in control of our
government.
Politicians would come and go like a summer breeze, but the civil
"servants"
(Ha! What a misnomer!) could be "in office" forever. Because of
incredibly
lucrative union contracts, they couldn't be fired, and they built mini-
empires of
power around themselves, such that they have become an ever-expanding
parasitic growth on the country.

Worse than the financial impact of this development has been the
psychological
impact on Americans. After years of indoctrination in our bureacrat-
controlled
schools, the majority of Americans now believe that they are
"entitled" to cradle-
to-grave service from their government. This attitude, when combined
with the
self-sustaining, ever-expanding bureacracy, has created a situation
from which
there is seemingly no end in sight.

When Hillary is elected president next fall the transformation to a
welfare state
will be complete. The Nanny State will be unstoppable, and the
decline and fall
of the US will be as inevitable as the spring rains in Iowa.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"