The Republican Thread

[HuskyCaucasian]

No idea where to put this, just thought it was interesting. Russian bombers and fighters have become increasingly active near (or in) western countries' airspace in the past couple years, remeniscent of the Cold War days, and in one case it resulted in some cool pics published by the RAF of a Britsh Tornado tracking a Russian Blackjack bomber.

Russia can't be trusted and most countries know it.

[NorthSideSox72]

Russia can't be trusted and most countries know it.

Its not that simple. Most countries don't trust most other countries. And as for the West and Russia, they never trusted each other, even after the Cold War ended.

 

[Y2HH]

Its not that simple. Most countries don't trust most other countries. And as for the West and Russia, they never trusted each other, even after the Cold War ended.

 

Only to Americans is the cold war over. I believe a lot of Russian leaders believe it's still being waged.

[NorthSideSox72]

Only to Americans is the cold war over. I believe a lot of Russian leaders believe it's still being waged.

I'd pretty much agree with that. They just had so much of their own misery in the 90's and early 2000's that they couldn't stay focused on the evil U.S. Now they have a growing economy, and can actually pay to keep up their military.

 

[Y2HH]

I'd pretty much agree with that. They just had so much of their own misery in the 90's and early 2000's that they couldn't stay focused on the evil U.S. Now they have a growing economy, and can actually pay to keep up their military.

 

Upon agreeing with me on something, you created a paradox somewhere in the universe.

 

We are all dead now.

[Balta1701]

I'd pretty much agree with that. They just had so much of their own misery in the 90's and early 2000's that they couldn't stay focused on the evil U.S. Now they have a growing economy, and can actually pay to keep up their military.

And mind you...that's thanks to the West's dependence on oil.

[NorthSideSox72]

And mind you...that's thanks to the West's dependence on oil.

You make it sound like that's the entire reason for Russia's climb back up. Its really far more complicated than that.

 

[Balta1701]

You make it sound like that's the entire reason for Russia's climb back up. Its really far more complicated than that.

Here's the question then. Imagine in 1998 the West suddenly has zero additional need for oil. Does Russia's economy recover or is it still mired in corruption and disaster? I'd bet on the latter.

[NorthSideSox72]

Here's the question then. Imagine in 1998 the West suddenly has zero additional need for oil. Does Russia's economy recover or is it still mired in corruption and disaster? I'd bet on the latter.

1. Russia's current economy is recovering AND is mired in corruption and disaster. Russia has the amazing ability to have all three of those things going on at once.

 

2. Without the continuing addiction to oil, Russia's rise would be slower. But still there.

 

[southsider2k5]

Here's the question then. Imagine in 1998 the West suddenly has zero additional need for oil. Does Russia's economy recover or is it still mired in corruption and disaster? I'd bet on the latter.

 

Russia is a huge net exporter, and of more than just oil, even if you were to exclude natural gas as well. The reason they got crushed in the 80's was because of the huge cut in all in commodities prices across the board. Things such as gold, silver, copper, Aluminum, tin, etc have powered Russia's economy long before they really ramped up oil production. Based on the record prices in metals alone, they would still have started producing some hard currency to survive on.

[Y2HH]

Let's not forget that even if the US weens itself off of oil, other countries like China are gulping it up in record quantities, all they'll do is gulp up even more being that it's cheaper without the US buying so much of it.

[NorthSideSox72]

Let's not forget that even if the US weens itself off of oil, other countries like China are gulping it up in record quantities, all they'll do is gulp up even more being that it's cheaper without the US buying so much of it.

Except China and India are already ahead of the US in alt energy funding.

 

[Y2HH]

Except China and India are already ahead of the US in alt energy funding.

 

Funding means dick unless you create and fund a technology that is more efficient/cheaper than the one you have. That tech doesn't exist yet. Wind farms and solar are not it, either. And they just surpassed the US this year...ignoring the fact that the US has been spending billions on these alternative techs for years and years. Look where all that money got us. Nowhere.

 

They both are still on oil, and their oil consumption is growing faster than ours once did.

 

The tech to replace oil isn't ready yet, despite all that money spent.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

The money spent on fossil fuel subsidies and on corn-ethanol in this country (basically just a handout to corn farmers) dwarfs the amount spent on renewables or research into those subjects.

[Y2HH]

The money spent on fossil fuel subsidies and on corn-ethanol in this country (basically just a handout to corn farmers) dwarfs the amount spent on renewables or research into those subjects.

 

There is plenty of private funding going into these ventures, believe me. The person who can find something viable, that's cheaper than what we have, and more efficient will be richer than Bill Gates. Believe me when I say American companies are quite aware of the money that can be made off of a patentable invention to do this...they're trying to find it first.

[NorthSideSox72]

Funding means dick unless you create and fund a technology that is more efficient/cheaper than the one you have. That tech doesn't exist yet. Wind farms and solar are not it, either. And they just surpassed the US this year...ignoring the fact that the US has been spending billions on these alternative techs for years and years. Look where all that money got us. Nowhere.

 

They both are still on oil, and their oil consumption is growing faster than ours once did.

 

The tech to replace oil isn't ready yet, despite all that money spent.

It is most certainly ready now, and is being implemented now, both here and there. There isn't some magic "ready" moment on these technologies. There is increasing efficiency and/or decreasing costs, which are on a constant change curve. But its pretty basic business principle that if they are funding more now, and they have a looser regulatory environment and more government power to act without recourse... they are likely to get ahead of us on this in the future.

 

No one is saying that means that China, India, or the US are going to suddenly have 60% of their energy from renewable sources... that will take a long time. I doubt any of those three countries reaches more than 30% in 10 years. But that's still a huge increase, greater than their population increases, which means the oil use will go down.

 

[Y2HH]

It is most certainly ready now, and is being implemented now, both here and there. There isn't some magic "ready" moment on these technologies. There is increasing efficiency and/or decreasing costs, which are on a constant change curve. But its pretty basic business principle that if they are funding more now, and they have a looser regulatory environment and more government power to act without recourse... they are likely to get ahead of us on this in the future.

 

No one is saying that means that China, India, or the US are going to suddenly have 60% of their energy from renewable sources... that will take a long time. I doubt any of those three countries reaches more than 30% in 10 years. But that's still a huge increase, greater than their population increases, which means the oil use will go down.

 

I don't believe China's oil use will go down at all in the next 10 years. It will, despite your prediction, boom to levels never before seen.

[Balta1701]

I don't believe China's oil use will go down at all in the next 10 years. It will, despite your prediction, boom to levels never before seen.

On that I fundamentally disagree...because there's no real way to increase global oil production. The only way China's consumption goes up is if the rest of the world's goes down.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't believe China's oil use will go down at all in the next 10 years. It will, despite your prediction, boom to levels never before seen.

WITHIN the next 10? Yes, I never said otherwise. The next 10, it will begin to drop. That's more what I am saying here. This gets back to what I've said a bazillion times - the opportunity for the US to get in front of these technologies can pay enormous dividends later. And that is the only model that will work well for the US in the current global economy. We cannot compete at the stage of broad, mainline manufacturing. Our money has to be made in front of technologies, not behind them.

 

[Y2HH]

On that I fundamentally disagree...because there's no real way to increase global oil production. The only way China's consumption goes up is if the rest of the world's goes down.

 

No, it simply means the prices rise. Oil production can and will increase -- OPEC artificially keeps the supply lower than they need too, believe me, they can pump out WAYYYYY more than they are now. And they will when the demand is there to do so.

[BigSqwert]

WITHIN the next 10? Yes, I never said otherwise. The next 10, it will begin to drop. That's more what I am saying here. This gets back to what I've said a bazillion times - the opportunity for the US to get in front of these technologies can pay enormous dividends later. And that is the only model that will work well for the US in the current global economy. We cannot compete at the stage of broad, mainline manufacturing. Our money has to be made in front of technologies, not behind them.

And that's another reason why I hate capitalism. It's all about the short term.

[Y2HH]

And that's another reason why I hate capitalism. It's all about the short term.

 

Just because you say or think something doesn't make it reality. What you said right there is simply not true.

[Balta1701]

Just because you say or think something doesn't make it reality. What you said right there is simply not true.

Ditto what you said about OPEC.

[BigSqwert]

Just because you say or think something doesn't make it reality. What you said right there is simply not true.

Study after study of CFOs and CEOs have shown that the next quarterly report trumps any potential investment that pays off in huge dividends in the mid to long term.

 

TO ADD:

 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently called short-termism one of the biggest threats to America's competitiveness. "This focus on the short term is a huge problem," agrees William Donaldson, former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. "With all the attention paid to quarterly performance, managers are taking their eyes off of long-term strategic goals."

 

LINK

Edited March 26, 2010 by BigSqwert

[Y2HH]

Ditto what you said about OPEC.

 

Um, what I said about OPEC is 100% true.

 

Why you think otherwise is beyond me.

 

You need to go learn about oil production, because you obviously don't know much about it.

 

I repeat one last time, and you should read it this time...

 

OPEC sets production levels to keep demand and supply in line. They CAN increase production if they want, by a LOT...by millions upon millions of barrels. That would simply decrease the value of the oil...so they don't do that. However, if the worlds demand was to rise, and it will, they WILL increase production to keep the market satisfied.

 

Now, you don't have to believe me, but what I said there is fact. 100%, whether you like it or not.