Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > green energy      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 121
green energyPage 8 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
There's a lot of truth to your answer Ace. I still prefer capitalism even if the difference is small. The power (or potential power) is more in our hands.

I'm happy to see the ignorant and irresponsible get financially raped. But it's not happening here with the crony bailouts of institutions that are "too big to fail". There's a big irony that I can only hope people will see. That is that to let the free market correct itself would come closer to punishing the irresponsible than what's allowed by the current administration and congress.

Hope and change lies with average Joe. Glen Beck is the only person in the mainstream that I hear repeating this.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 122
green energy
Posted: 7/1/2009 11:16:39 PM
The power (or potential power) is more in our hands.


If you're a major stockholder, that's true. If not, what access or leverage do you have?

BTW, I do agree with you about the bail-outs, but we're all going to need a bail-out if we don't start converting to a sustainable infrastructure so that we can better manage our fuel.

I just saw "Who Killed the Electric Car" the other night. Funny, but if GM had not crushed all the EV1s and stopped development, they'd be well positioned to weather this downturn and the increased fuel prices that will come when the economy bounces back. I don't think there's any doubt that GM is defunct. But a decline that is slowed enough by federal intervention will at least prevent the Detroit area from exploding in riots. I suspect that's the thinking behind the bail-outs. You've got to give an alky some beer if he's going into delerium tremens, otherwise he'll die a messy death.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 123
view profile
History
green energy
Posted: 7/2/2009 12:04:29 AM
No one seems to mention the Wagner Act of the 1930's, and the ruinous effect it had on American carmakers' ability to control labor costs. One reason they encouraged demand for larger cars and trucks through advertising is that they made more profit per vehicle. If they'd made mostly economy cars, the more-or-less fixed labor costs would have cut their profits to nothing.

And the CAFE standards imposed enormous costs on the carmakers. Congress authorized them to make this country more immune to foreign restrictions of the oil supply, and they have not done that at all. The U.S. imports more of its oil today--by far--than it did in 1974. And about a fourth of that is still used for transportation. Lighting, heating/cooling, and electric motors each account for about a fourth of the total oil the U.S. consumes.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 124
green energy
Posted: 7/2/2009 1:22:58 PM
Well, labor costs for GM cars amount to a whopping 10%, even with collective bargaining. When the first round of mandatory fuel efficiency regs were being proposed, the Japanese manufacturers got to work on meeting them. They didn't spend tremendous amounts of political capital on trying to beat them back because they knew that if they were going to break into the American car market they'd have to play by the rules. Remember the Honda CVCC engine?

The market, led by big players who resist every innovation so as to maximize the profit they can extract from their existing factory operations, has not responded by demanding greater efficiency through their purchasing behavior. This is because without adequate information about the consequences to themselves, their children, and their grandchildren, consumers have not seen the need.

Fuel consumption is a three-way transaction. There is the buyer, the seller, and the person who will have to endure the opportunity cost after the fuel has been burned. That person's interest is not represented in the market model, and won't be until the supply is so short that the current consumer and the aced-out future consumer become one and the same person.

Once car makers wake up and recognize that their business is motorized vehicles, not IC engines, we just might get somewhere. They became wedded to a particular technology, rather than keeping an eye on the true demand, which is for convenient, safe, enjoyable, individualized transportation. That is the value to consumers that a car provides.

As oil gets more dear, a 300-mile range for a 5-adult passenger car that is used for daily commuting will no longer be viable. Those gas hogs will be fine to rent for the occasional road trip, but for day-to-day use, a two-seater with a 60-mile range and emissions concentrated at the electrical generation facility (where they can be scrubbed) will do fine. My next vehicle purchase will be either all electric or hybrid. I could go all electric since I live close to work and the car I have now is a small pick-up that meets my needs for hauling tools, debris, and big-box items. Most days I could park the pick-up, or even rent it out.

BTW, it turns out that hybrid technology was initially developed here in the US. And, just as with Deming's production methods, it was dismissed by our vaunted automakers and taken up by the Japanese. There is still a waiting list to get a Prius.

The Big 3 can continue to try to shift the blame to the workers and the CAFE standards all they want to. However, it is a bad workman who blames his tools. My only regret about GM is that those workers still aren't prepared to design and build cars that will actually compete in the new economic climate of ever-increasing liquid-fuel prices.

GM is dead by its own hand, and will not recover as long as it retains its current mindset.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 125
green energy
Posted: 8/19/2009 11:14:20 AM
OUR LAND - COLLATERAL FOR THE NATIONAL DEBT
Derry Brownfield
August 17, 2007
NewsWithViews.com
I consider Wayne Hage one of the most intelligent men I ever met. On our very first visit he was explaining the World Bank, the International Monetary fund and how the world bankers planned on collateralizing the world debt with land. Not just the U.S. national debt, but the “WORLD” debt. A listener sent me a copy of a report of the FOURTH WORLD WILDERNESS CONGRESS, which was held in Denver in 1987. Over 1500 people from sixty countries were told that wilderness lands were to protect the reindeer, the spotted owl and other endangered species. Ninety percent of the group consisted of conservationists, ecologists, government and United Nations bureaucrats. The other ten percent were world banking heavyweights, such as David Rockefeller of Chase Manhattan Bank, London banker Edmund de Rothschild and the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, James Baker, who gave the keynote address. George W. Hunt, an investment councilor, served as official host and sat in on all the meetings. It was George Hunt that wrote the report from which I have gleaned much of my information.
During the first three days, the group was told that the WILDERNESS CONGRESS was about beating the ozone deterioration and bringing the rain forests back. The following days were closed to the public. With only the bankers in attendance the topics discussed centered around the creation of a “WORLD CONSERVATION BANK” with collateral being derived from receipt of wilderness properties throughout the world. This bank would have central bank powers similar to the Federal Reserve. It would create currency and loans and engage in international discounting, counter-trade, barter and swap actions. Rothschild personally conducted the monetary matters and the creation of this WORLD CONSERVATION BANK. This bank would refinance by swapping debt for assets. A country with a huge national debt would receive money to pay off the debt by swapping the debt for wilderness lands. The plan was to swap one trillion dollars of Third World Debt into this new bank. In the long term, when the countries won’t be able to pay off the loans, governments from around the world will give title to their wilderness lands to the bankers.

George Hunt wrote: “Title to the lands will go to the World Wilderness Land Inventory Trust. This Trust will float into the World Conservation Bank by the unanimous decree of the world’s people, saying, God bless you for saving our reindeer. Those people at the congress were ignorant. They don’t suspect anything. They’re very naïve. Not stupid, ignorant. I’m talking about the 90% that were not the world banking heavyweights.”

Hunt goes on to say that World Bank loans, as they stand now, are not collateralized. They’re saying, we want collateral, so when we loan-swap this debt, we’re going to own the Amazon if you default. They’re going to make their bad loans good by collateralizing them after the fact with all of this land and somebody is going to end up with title to twelve and half billion acres. They have multi-trillions of dollars upon which they can create currencies and loans and they’re going to begin to barter and counter-trade and loan-swap against the United States. The World Conservation Bank is a scheme to monetize land. This will function as a world central bank and out of that bank there will grow a one-world fiat currency.

Hunt goes on to say that World Bank loans, as they stand now, are not collateralized. They’re saying, we want collateral, so when we loan-swap this debt, we’re going to own the Amazon if you default. They’re going to make their bad loans good by collateralizing them after the fact with all of this land and somebody is going to end up with title to twelve and half billion acres. They have multi-trillions of dollars upon which they can create currencies and loans and they’re going to begin to barter and counter-trade and loan-swap against the United States. The World Conservation Bank is a scheme to monetize land. This will function as a world central bank and out of that bank there will grow a one-world fiat currency.

When James Baker made his keynote speech in 1987, he stated that, “No longer will the World Bank carry this debt unsecured. The only assets we have to collateralize are federal lands and national parks.” Baker’s definition of federal lands includes Heritage sites, of which there are about 20 in the United States. I say “about” 20, because they are being added on a regular basis. As I write this article Congress is about to vote on a proposed Rim of the Valley National Park that would include over 500,000 acres of National Forest land and 170,000 parcels of private property including many farms and ranches. At the same time there is a bill before Congress called the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act that would increase the acreage of designated wilderness by 50% in the lower 48 states. *** While our Heritage sites take in quite a large amount of territory, such as Yellowstone National Park and Mesa Verde, the Grand Canyon and the Everglades, other countries have much greater areas. Brazil for example has the Amazon Conservation Complex and Canada has the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks. As I write this story the list includes 851 properties in 141 countries, comprising over one third of the earth’s land mass. Will all this land collateralize the world’s debt? Probably not, so along comes NAIS (the National Animal Identification System).

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, “The first step in implementing a national animal identification system (NAIS) is identifying and registering premises that are associated with the animal agriculture industry. In terms of the NAIS, a premise is any geographically unique location in which agricultural animals are raised, held, or boarded. Under this definition, farms, ranches, feed-yards, auction barns and livestock exhibitions and fair sites are all examples of premises.” That may be the definition some government bureaucrat will give you, but the word “premises” under the “international Criminal Court Act 2002- Sect 4, states: The word “premises” includes a place and a “conveyance.” Why check with the International Criminal Court Act? Because on June 8, 2007 under Secy. of Ag. Bruce Knight, speaking at the World Pork Expo in Des Moines, is quoted as saying, “We have to live by the same international rules we’re expecting other people to do.”

Throughout the entire Draft National Animal Identification System Users Guide, land is referred to as a premises and not property. A “Premises” has no protection under the Constitution of the United States, while property always has the exclusive rights of the owner tied to it. Property rights are protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.

The word “Premise” is a synonym for the word tenement. A definition of the word tenement in law is: Property, such as land, held by one person “leasing” it to another. Webster’s New World Dictionary 1960 College Edition defines “Premises” as the part of a deed or “lease” that states its reason, the parties involved and the property in “conveyance.” Webster then defines “conveyance” as the transfer of ownership of real property from one person to another. It is quite obvious that the bureaucrats in Washington had a very good reason to use the term “premises” and never mention “PROPERTY.”

Let’s take another look at the wilderness areas and the World Bank’s plans to collateralize its loans. While the wilderness areas cover about one third of the earth’s surface, they are wilderness areas for a good reason – they were useless or difficult to homestead, farm or use in a constructive manner. Worldwide the best and more valuable land is occupied by farmers, ranchers and people with the ambition to produce. Wouldn’t the World Bankers rather have some productive property than mountains, deserts and swamps?

I am convinced that the word “premise” will put an encumbrance on your deed. The bankers say they want to monetize land. It’s your land and my land they want to monetize.

The bankers are in the process of accumulating the wealth of the world. Very few privately owned assets can be termed “real wealth.” According to scripture, God made Abraham very wealthy, giving him LAND, CATTLE, silver and gold. (Genesis 24:35) Four thousand years later, wealth continues to be LAND, CATTLE, silver and gold. I don’t know where the world deposits of gold are stored, but I’m sure the bankers have them in their control. That only leaves LAND and CATTLE which I believe could be next on the list. Genesis 47 describers how Joseph had storehouses full of grain to feed the people but he didn’t have a welfare program. During the first year of the famine, Joseph took “ALL THE MONEY” the people had for only one year’s supply of grain. The second year he took all their cattle for another year’s supply of grain. The next year they said, “We have nothing left but our bodies and our land. Buy us and our land in exchange for food and we and our land will be servants to Pharaoh.” Genesis 47:21 states, “And as for the people, he removed them to the cities and made slaves of them.”

James Madison made a statement concerning how our people could lose our freedom by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power. Is it possible that those in power today are gradually and silently in the process of removing the people to the cities to make slaves of them? Federalizing our land and our cattle would certainly be a step in that direction.
© 2007 Derry Brownfield - All Rights Reserved
For further research into this please visit the following sites:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread45831/pg1
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBS_enUS322US322&q=National+Parks+uses+for+collateral
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 126
green energy
Posted: 8/20/2009 10:48:41 AM
Some great stuff in there! That ripsaw unmanned tank is really something. Of course my favorite is the fryer-grease-fueled generator for fast-food restaurants.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 127
green energy
Posted: 8/20/2009 11:35:18 PM
Obama, Soros"Hedge Fund" Petrobras Brazil Offshore Drilling Funded By U.S.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Billionaire George Soros bought $811 million stake in Petrobras in the second quarter, making the Brazilian oil company his investment fund's largest holding. The Wall Street Journal reported that National Security Advisor James Jones met this month with Brazilian Officials to talk about the loan. The U.S is going to lend "Two Billion Dollars" to Brazil's state owned company, Peterobras to finance. exploration the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in Santos Basin near Rio De Janerio. The Democratic controlled Congress has prohibited any offshore drilling of the coast of the United States. The Obama Administration is going to loan Brazil two billion dollars when we could use this money to drill off the shore of Florida and California. This is clearly a payback to George Soros for supporting the President Obama in the 2008 Presidential election campaign. We are going to pay for Brazil exploration so, they can charge the American people $150 a barrel for oil. The investment that George Soros made in President Obama could be worth Billions of dollars in the near future. There needs to be a Congressional investigation into this sweetheart deal for George Soros Hedge fund to see if the Obama Administration is giving preferential treatment to there biggest campaign donor. Finally, will the "Environmental Wackos" protest the Obama administration for supporting "Big Oil" exploration instead of spending taxpayer dollars on Green So-called energy.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 128
green energy
Posted: 8/21/2009 1:11:01 AM
Well if it's a loan backed by oil revenues then presumably he'll pay it back with interest. If it expands Brazil's capacity at least they aren't funding terrorists and don't hate us. When those fields come on line the supply will go up and the prices will drop.

This isn't sand down a rat-hole like buying GM stock, for goodness sake!

Your last point about big oil is certainly telling, though! But let me ask you this: which is worse--a loan that is likely to be paid back or a bail-out to the old GM guard that never will be. I'd prefer we expand our network of oil-producing allies and dump the dinosaurs in order to finance green energy.
 Petrified_Wood
Joined: 7/29/2009
Msg: 129
green energy
Posted: 8/21/2009 7:45:05 AM

Some green inventions here


I loved #5 - the shock absorber that generates power. Brilliant inventions like these are what's going to "drive" our economy. Motion is energy - and even the smartest people are only now starting to realize how much energy we waste - that is - how much wasted energy we can recapture. Similar ideas (http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/29/piezoelectric-nanowires-could-lead-to-blood-powered-ipods-cellp/) to make electricity out of movement are in the works. Simply walking around could charge up your cell phone.

(I'm thinking I could probably light up half of Long Beach if they attach one of these to me at the next POF mixer.)
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 130
green energy
Posted: 8/21/2009 9:47:38 AM
Hate to disappoint you Ace but Brazil just signed an oil deal with China we won't see any of it. I notice you didn't address the hypocrisy of giving a state run oil company that one of his biggest supporters has huge investments, that he in not screaming about their profits, or that he won't open exploration here.

I can't believe you don't see the hypocrisy in this and that it would piss you off just a little, but that you actually try to rationalize it.

that oil company recorded 118 billion in profits last year.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 131
green energy
Posted: 8/21/2009 1:37:11 PM
Well, I do see the hipocrisy of funding offshore drilling while laggng on the green eneryg R&D. But Soros isn't one of the same old gang and Brazil is ahead of us when it comes to adopting sustainable energy. Soros will invest in green energy rather than promoting more nukes like the old guard. And you have to admit that nukes pose more risks than PV. We have a perfectly good nuclear power plant a safe distance away already.

Oil is fungible, so whatever they sell to China will still reduce the price to us.

I've already stated my view that from a military and strategic standpoint, extracting distant oil first is the way to go, and that holding back our reserves close to home will more than pay for any additional costs we bear now. In fact, I kind-of wish that leftys would stop providing political cover for the geopolitical RISK players on that score.

I can' believe you're criticizing me for not being a doctrinaire lefty!
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 132
green energy
Posted: 8/21/2009 2:51:11 PM
I would never accuse you of being a lefty, you can't accuse the guilty.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 133
green energy
Posted: 8/21/2009 3:12:42 PM
jbogie you have to understand that me and Ace jab each other all the time, wasn't being real serious.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 134
green energy
Posted: 8/21/2009 3:53:20 PM
Some insults I'll take, "doctrinaire" ain't one of 'em. As far as "lefty" goes, lefty is as lefty does.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 135
green energy
Posted: 8/21/2009 8:57:33 PM
Actually my point to the oil thing was why are we giving a state run oil company 2 billion for offshore drilling that made 118 billion in profit last year and is 30% owned by Obama's buddy George Soros0 (a little pay back for his buddy). He won't support drilling here and it could be used for some alternative energy development.

Ace I agree with saving our reserves, but we should drill it and have it ready to go and make sure it is actually there. It going to be a **** 30 years from now if we go to drill it and its not real. I'd rather find out now.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 136
green energy
Posted: 8/22/2009 4:13:33 PM

Actually my point to the oil thing was why are we giving a state run oil company 2 billion for offshore drilling that made 118 billion in profit last year and is 30% owned by Obama's buddy George Soros0 (a little pay back for his buddy). He won't support drilling here and it could be used for some alternative energy development.


Your point is well taken. I think my counerpoint is too.

It looks like Soros and Brazil will be in a position to pay it back, unlike the loans (and equity purchases for Gotd's sake) made by GWB to his cronies just before he left office.

Those who are poised to drill here will not invest here. They will invest in China. The return on this loan will go into the Treasury. What return will we get from either the bailout or the oil piggies?

The technology to verify oil reserves is mature. If they say it's there, at least 80% of it is.
Show ALL Forums  > California  > green energy