64 replies to this topic

[ArchAngel.]

Cript, on Jun 27 2006, 12:13 PM, said:

It would be kind of hard for the richest, most technologically advanced country not to be in the forefront of the fuel race. Not to mention that we would very quickly find out about any new fuel source given our current reconaissance efforts. And regardless of how little oil we have, the nukes are already there, just waiting for the button to be pressed.

Actually no... They're much farther behind than any other country, because they had a contract on oil prices from the middle east. The US paid the same price for oil as they did in '93 for 10 years after that, that's why oil prices are such a shock to us now. Countries like Britain have been dealing with 5$ a gallon oil prices for a while now, but we've just been spoiled rotten, and haven't realized what a predicament we're in yet. Some super rich middle-easterner that owned all of that oil, could have used that money over the last decade on research. Then, they could have been the fore-founder of a new energy resource, then taken over the US by using the plan that I proposed, but shoulda-woulda-coulda, am I right?

[Cript]

PR1NC3, on Jun 27 2006, 07:30 PM, said:

Actually no... They're much farther behind than any other country, because they had a contract on oil prices from the middle east. The US paid the same price for oil as they did in '93 for 10 years after that, that's why oil prices are such a shock to us now. Countries like Britain have been dealing with 5$ a gallon oil prices for a while now, but we've just been spoiled rotten, and haven't realized what a predicament we're in yet. Some super rich middle-easterner that owned all of that oil, could have used that money over the last decade on research. Then, they could have been the fore-founder of a new energy resource, then taken over the US by using the plan that I proposed, but shoulda-woulda-coulda, am I right?

You're going to tell me that the United States is a long way behind in the fuel race? You know, there's a reason computers came from over here, just like almost everything else. As capitalists, we do everything we can to motivate scientists, engineers and researchers to constantly search for profitable ideas, including fuel cell research. So seriously, we are very much ahead of the curve when it comes to energy etc, look at our space program and our nuclear energy programs.

Not Even Close!!! Also, when a new type of fuel does come out...in the highly unlikely event it doesn't come from here, I'm sure we'll end up with it either by military force, or through somewhere else. The worldwide technology sharing is very good right now, and it's why, for the most part, we share our weapons technologies so much.

[Frizzle]

I can't be bothered Cript you know how lazy I am, let's just say it would take the general ideas of Nazism, the Japanese, Victorian/British and some American political ideas, enwrapped in my own.

But then again, I'm a hard arse and no-one would like my slogans

Work your finger to the bone or be shot.

See?

[Cript]

Frizzle, on Jun 29 2006, 01:14 PM, said:

I can't be bothered Cript you know how lazy I am, let's just say it would take the general ideas of Nazism, the Japanese, Victorian/British and some American political ideas, enwrapped in my own.

But then again, I'm a hard arse and no-one would like my slogans

Work your finger to the bone or be shot.

See?

The problem of course lies in human nature. Nothing makes everyone happy...and if anything brings down the US, it will be that very fact of freedom.

[ArchAngel.]

Quote

As capitalists, we do everything we can to motivate scientists, engineers and researchers to constantly search for profitable ideas, including fuel cell research.

Exactly... Whatever is profitable, and right now, oil is the most profitable energy source in our country, because of our addiction to it. You know, Mobil Gas Company had their record profits at the end of '05. I don't know about you, but I though the rising oil prices would minimize their profits. They're happy with the current energy situation. They don't give a damn, as long as they're the ones making the money. There has been research on other feul sources, like that motorcycle that runs on oxygen and hydrogen, but they always knew that it wouldn't revolutionize the energy industry, because it's so limited. They probably could have found a new energy source for transportation five years ago if they wanted to, but the feul companies are too happy with their profits. You hear that the oil prices per barrel is going up, but that doesn't affect the US feul companies, because of our contract with countries in the middle east. We're still paying the same prices as ten years ago for each barrel of oil from them. Our energy source is going to stay the same, until the companies find that it isn't as profitable as another source they can find. They are searching, and they have found, but they aren't going to release any cheap energy sources to the world, because that means less profits for them. That is the way a capitalist country works.

[Cript]

PR1NC3, on Jun 29 2006, 02:17 PM, said:

Exactly... Whatever is profitable, and right now, oil is the most profitable energy source in our country, because of our addiction to it. You know, Mobil Gas Company had their record profits at the end of '05. I don't know about you, but I though the rising oil prices would minimize their profits. They're happy with the current energy situation. They don't give a damn, as long as they're the ones making the money. There has been research on other feul sources, like that motorcycle that runs on oxygen and hydrogen, but they always knew that it wouldn't revolutionize the energy industry, because it's so limited. They probably could have found a new energy source for transportation five years ago if they wanted to, but the feul companies are too happy with their profits. You hear that the oil prices per barrel is going up, but that doesn't affect the US feul companies, because of our contract with countries in the middle east. We're still paying the same prices as ten years ago for each barrel of oil from them. Our energy source is going to stay the same, until the companies find that it isn't as profitable as another source they can find. They are searching, and they have found, but they aren't going to release any cheap energy sources to the world, because that means less profits for them. That is the way a capitalist country works.

Regardless of what source we're currently dependent on, we still research other sources. We could still be using all coal, but we don't. We use nuclear, wind, solar, etc. Your argument doesn't make sense. Yes, we as a country...and a world are dependent on oil...that doesn't change the fact that when a new source is discovered, we'll be the first to know about it. Every major fuel company is contantly researching new technologies to maintain their high profitability. Your using the example of US Oil Companies is quite invalid, since they, if anyone will be the forerunners in fuel research so they can maintain their market capitilization. As fossil fuels deplete, they companies will change their MOs to reflect the increasing need for alternatives.

[ArchAngel.]

Cript, on Jun 29 2006, 01:21 PM, said:

Regardless of what source we're currently dependent on, we still research other sources. We could still be using all coal, but we don't. We use nuclear, wind, solar, etc. Your argument doesn't make sense. Yes, we as a country...and a world are dependent on oil...that doesn't change the fact that when a new source is discovered, we'll be the first to know about it. Every major fuel company is contantly researching new technologies to maintain their high profitability. Your using the example of US Oil Companies is quite invalid, since they, if anyone will be the forerunners in fuel research so they can maintain their market capitilization. As fossil fuels deplete, they companies will change their MOs to reflect the increasing need for alternatives.

There already is a major need for alternatives. The wealth difference in the US is growing, the middle class is disappearing, and yet we are still paying how much we do on gas. The oil companies in the US are happy with what they're making now. They want to make more, but they're already pushing it as it is. I am talking about oil as our source of energy for transportation. Not nuclear power, none of those. The reason we are still using oil is because the oil companies are making good money off of it. If their scientists discovered a feul source for cars that would cost people only dollars a day, do you think they would release this feul source to the public? No. They would keep it secret, so they could continue their reign with oil. They have no reason to change to another feul source, unless it is more profitable.

[Hawk]

Princes next argument will be that the distribution of wealth was a reason for the Great Depression, which it was, and that we will have the same problem again. o.o

[nox]

*distribution of non-existant wealth.

[sonic]

Anytime in the near future?
Nothing.
Nukes? You cant imagine what we have.
We have some of the most patriotic citizens, whilling to fight for our land.

I honestly do not see an invasion happining.

Cript, on Jun 29 2006, 11:24 AM, said:

The problem of course lies in human nature. Nothing makes everyone happy...and if anything brings down the US, it will be that very fact of freedom.

Exactally. We in the US can say whatever we want and the mass population has a big inpact on desicions made in our government.

[ArchAngel.]

Casilla, on Jun 29 2006, 05:45 PM, said:

I would like to know how you came about this (false) information? It would greatly amuse me.

The economy is not zero-sum, you must understand. Our economy is a wonderful thing, because we have greedy businessmen who invest their profits right back into it.

Investment means more money for the rest of us, in many different avenues.

When large corporations make more money, everyone else makes more money. They are not taking anything FROM you.

Economics 101, kthxbye.

Hmm... Right... I see. So an investment is like, free money for the people invested in? I think not. It's just free advertising/rights to say they own you/extra ways to make money. The majority of their money isn't invested, if it was, then we'd have the perfect economy, but it isn't. At most, they would put 5-10% of their profits into investments, but that's about it. They keep the rest for themself and hoard it or spend it on a lavish life style. Our economy is far from perfect. You speak of a perfect economy.
Unless, your definition of not taking anything from anyone, is making money off the toil of the people breaking their backs, and spending it on lavish lifestyles. Hmm... Seems pretty one sided don't you think?

Casilla, on Jun 30 2006, 12:26 AM, said:

Well of course we'll have the same problem again. We just HAD that problem back in 2000. But not to the extent of the Great Depression; no, of course not. We probably won't experience anything like the Great Depression ever again.

But we ALWAYS have booms and depressions in our economy. It's an ongoing cycle - about 10-30 years. Of course, now that we're on a world market, the recessions happen a bit more quickly than they used to.

The distribution of wealth is NOT a matter of class; I don't want that to be a confusion to anyone reading. What it means is that the economy has more money than the consumers do.

The entire economy of the late 1920's was centered around the automobile. The factories made so many cars, because they were selling, and as they expanded their business, they took on more workers. Every single other industry that they depended on also got a boom, who also had to expand to accomodate. More jobs, more money to the consumer, yes? Well, yes. Other businesses saw an increase in sales, because there was more money for the consumers, and it was like this great chain reaction. But the problem was, they were expanding more quickly than consumers were buying. Banks made it worse by lending out money - both to businesses and individuals - that could not possibly be paid back. But people are more willing to lend out money when the economy is good, because they have more faith in people to pay it back.

Hmm... That's part of the reason. You also forgot about the funny money in the stock markets.
The brokers sold stocks to the people. At the time the person bought the stock, the broker said,
"Well, you can buy 10 times as many stocks. You can buy as many stocks as you want, so long as you can pay at least 10% of it now, and when you made your money back off of the stocks, plus some, you could pay it all back. No worries, right?"
Well... With so much funny money in the air, companies started expanding with money they didn't really have, and paying their bills with that as well. Then, there was the stock market crash that signalled the start of the depression, but I don't have to tell you anything about that. I hope.

Casilla, on Jun 30 2006, 12:26 AM, said:

But does it apply here? Well, the economy isn't really booming because of gas prices. It isn't really receding, either. It's just kinda sitting there, stable. Of course, morale is down, which hurts the economy, but is there a problem of distribution of wealth? No. We aren't making more than we consume. We are making LESS than we consume, thus the high prices.

Ah... Yes... Makes perfect sense that the economy is standing still. Well, with the average salary not going any higher, but with gas prices growing. It's no wonder why it's standing still? I have no idea, how an economy with a receding middle class can be called stable. Would you care to inform me how you came up with that conclusion?

[Cript]

PR1NC3, on Jun 30 2006, 02:43 AM, said:

Hmm... Right... I see. So an investment is like, free money for the people invested in? I think not. It's just free advertising/rights to say they own you/extra ways to make money. The majority of their money isn't invested, if it was, then we'd have the perfect economy, but it isn't. At most, they would put 5-10% of their profits into investments, but that's about it. They keep the rest for themself and hoard it or spend it on a lavish life style. Our economy is far from perfect. You speak of a perfect economy.
Unless, your definition of not taking anything from anyone, is making money off the toil of the people breaking their backs, and spending it on lavish lifestyles. Hmm... Seems pretty one sided don't you think?

You can't just pull 5-10% out of your ass like that dude. Actually, my company, like a lot of others, throw 5-10% of its profits into a profit pool, just for the employees. They don't "take the profits and spend it on a lavish life style" as that defeats the definition of profits...profits are what's left after the CEOs and other execs have already paid themselves. Obviously, if things are going well for the oil industry, which you're saying they are...the Business Execs will get a far better ROI by reinvesting the money in the company than they would by paying dividends to the shareholders, of whom executives are the largest.

This is the basic principle involved with whether a company reinvests or pays dividends. Dividends are paid when the company thinks that reinvesting in the company will not show a higher rate than, for instance, the interest rate or average returns on treasury bonds. the CEO gets huge amounts of stock options, as does the rest of the executive committee and these guys want to profit, and in order to do so, reinvest in their company when their are profitable.

Edited by Cript, 29 June 2006 - 11:53 PM.