Re: OT - This economy

On Mar 20, 2:04 pm, Hurtin <SouthArm...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 20, 11:17 am, Buddude197 <buddude...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Mar 20, 8:14 am, "Tony Nichols" <bass2yourf...@xxxxxx> wrote:

"Buddude197" <buddude...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:39127376-c107-4617-8aba-6957529eee4c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 17, 11:08 pm, dmor <d...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Is what's happening with housing and on Wall Street and with the Fed
scaring the *** out of anybody else? When all is said and done, if
everything crashes in and there's not enough money to put food on the
table, who gives a *** about the NFL.
Two words: Hydrogen energy.
I am no bleeding heart enviromentalist, but what originally started as
an economic parachute has become a full blown anchor. Subprime lending
wasn't what started the problem. Sure poorer folks were always a risk,
but while the cost of fuel was low everyone had more money to to
invest in bettering themselves. For life long renters, that was buying
a home. As the cost of oil doubled, then tripled, from the lows of the
late 90's those folks who were struggling to make those ends meet no
longer could. Just the basics, getting to work, heating the house,
became struggles. Then as the cost to everything increased in relation
to the expense of delivering it, the problem compounded. Welcome
default loans. Welcome subprime crisis. Welcome trickle up pain.
Bottom line is, *** OPEC. Had we done as we should 20 years ago and
began laying the infastructure for a reliable, renewable source of
fuel, the Chinese consumption of oil has minimal effect on our
economy. Didn't happen. It took the earth billions of years to form
oil, it took humans less then 150 years of steadily increasing
consumption to use more then half of it.

The main problem is the "trickle-down" numb-nuts who think wearing
a blindfold and giving Bill Gates a tax break will solve our woes.
Notice I did not say Republicans. This is where we were in the
70's and 80's. No one has learned a lesson. This time we're
leaking billions per month in Iraq while we try to make
the IS and LM curves work.

Every politician should be lined up and sentenced to participate
in an old Australian "booting". Line up every crooked CEO
and business exec.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's funny how you indict both politicians and CEOs. Kind of an anti-
socialist, anti-free market rant. The market system works. It works in
super efficiency when there is real competition. The government
dosen't work. It never has and is the furthest thing from efficiency
that exists from a delivery of service standpoint. It dosen't have
competition. The issue with oil vs alternative was nothing more then
establishment and foothold. Simply put, you can't blame someone for
investing in corrupting a competing system that effects their bottom
line, you have to blame the corrupted individuals. In that case, the
beauracrats who took campaign funding to suppress alternative techs.
Had someone with deep enough pockets came along years ago to throw
around campaign funding, maybe we find balance and none of us are
bitching. Now before you think "the republicans and big oil", keep in
mind one of the biggest anti-alternative groups came out of Detriot
and the IAW. Ironically black gold had strong support from both sides
of the isle and no amount of revisionist backpedalling from either
party can change the ugly history.

It's the "UAW", dingaling. And why would the UAW be opposed to
alternative fuels? They make the cars, they don't sell the oil.
They'll still make cars regardless of what fuel they take.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Hit the wrong key. Hate that usenet dosen't have an edit feature. The
"UAW" had many and varied reasons for opposing sensible fuels
consumption standards, not the least of which was fear of watching
already market share stealing and more efficient foreign manufacturers
gain greater market share:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/sep06/4376
"Inaction suits the auto companies just fine, and this goes as well
for the main union representing their employees, the United Auto
Workers. Alan Reuther, the legislative director of the UAW, told
members of the House committee that imposition of a higher miles-per-
gallon requirement "would severely discriminate against full line
[auto] producers whose product mixes contain greater percentages of
larger cars and light trucks." The UAW also opposes a shift to a
footprint calculation for autos, because, it says, dropping the
fleetwide average would theoretically allow the Big Three U.S.
automakers to leave the production of smaller cars to foreign
manufacturers. In the current system, U.S. carmakers need to make
small cars in the United States to balance out their many SUVs; a
footprint system would render that balancing unnecessary. "

Sure it's the engineers who allowed us to fall behind Japan and
Germany in vehicle standards, but it would be the "workers" that are
hurt by any seismic shift to alternative fueled vehicles as both those
nations are already more advanced in the R&D for those vehicles and,
in Japans case, well behind on the infastructure to support it.
.