|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: US energy independence
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Newsweeklies have started talking about the possibility that the United States will become "energy independent" within the next decade. Increased production using new technologies, like "frakking," along with decreased demand due to new efficiency standards and investments in renewable energy will mean the US will not only not have to import oil anymore, but might even become an exporter.
I suppose my first question is whether this seems very likely to happen. I haven't seen anyone saying otherwise, but that's the media for you. But if it does happen, the predictions for what it will mean range from a new American economic golden age to a complete collapse of the world geo-political balance.
I don't suppose there are many experts on geo-politics, economics, or oil production on the ship, but surely all of us have opinions. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I doubt it's possible. I wish it was. Energy independence would be the best thing to ever happen to the United States. Jobs in energy production pay very well. Plus, imagine not having to worry about politics in the Middle East.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Plus, imagine not having to worry about politics in the Middle East.
Errrrr.
Given the presence of extremely high dudgeon of assorted flavors in combo with nuclear capabilities (not to mention assorted alliances, some not all that well-thought-out) I can't imagine the U.S. EVER "not having to worry about politics in the Middle East."
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
We have alliances because of the oil. We worry about nuclear weapons because of our alliances and involvement in the Middle East. Take away our need for Middle East oil and we don't the alliances or to intervene in Middle East politics.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
One of the issues I have read about is that the US might very well decide Middle-East security isn't its problem anymore, but that will leave the question of whose problem it will be. China is the obvious candidate, since it needs a lot of oil but doesn't have domestic supplies to fall back on, which may or may not make anyone feel better.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
We have alliances because of the oil. We worry about nuclear weapons because of our alliances and involvement in the Middle East. Take away our need for Middle East oil and we don't the alliances or to intervene in Middle East politics.
Take away Middle East oil and there's still Israel.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
True
Hard to say how energy independence would affect how the United States deals with Israel.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
We have alliances because of the oil. We worry about nuclear weapons because of our alliances and involvement in the Middle East. Take away our need for Middle East oil and we don't the alliances or to intervene in Middle East politics.
And then where will American arms companies sell their weapons?
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Same places they sell them now.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Same places they sell them now.
Right at the moment they are selling them in huge quantities to Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE. If those countries don't sell their oil how are they going to afford those fancy warplanes and missile systems?
[ 23. November 2012, 20:34: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
They'll sell their oil to China.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Newsweeklies have started talking about the possibility that the United States will become "energy independent" within the next decade.
It should be noted that what's usually described is (to borrow a favorite phrase of the Romney campaign) "North American energy independence". This is often translated as "U.S. energy independence" by Americans who often forget that there are other countries in North America. Looking at the specifics of the policies involved indicates that "North American energy independence" will achieved by the U.S. importing a metric shitload of tar-sand-derived oil from Canada.
As far as Middle East policy goes, the fungibility of petroleum means that even if the U.S. doesn't directly import oil from the Middle East, it will still be subject to price fluctuations due to production goals set by the major producers (a.k.a. OPEC). This means the U.S. will still be quite interested in the political situation in oil-producing countries.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Croesos writes: quote:
Looking at the specifics of the policies involved indicates that "North American energy independence" will achieved by the U.S. importing a metric shitload of tar-sand-derived oil from Canada.
Or maybe not. Too late perhaps?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
Can't read the linked article without subscribing or logging in.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I've seen several reports that speak of specifically US energy independence, though a couple do place it in the context of an oil production boom in the entire western hemisphere.
[ 23. November 2012, 22:22: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I was going to look up my sources, but it turns out that while headlines speak of US energy independence, articles talk about North American energy independence. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Croesos writes: quote:
Looking at the specifics of the policies involved indicates that "North American energy independence" will achieved by the U.S. importing a metric shitload of tar-sand-derived oil from Canada.
Or maybe not. Too late perhaps?
Depends on how you define "energy independence". Brazil has become "energy independent" by some measures, but this doesn't mean they're not importing oil. In Brazil's case it means that they're exporting an amount of sugar-cane-derived ethanol equal (in energy content) to the amount of petroleum imported into the country. Using this measure, one can easily foresee a situation where "North American energy independence" is achieved by Canada exporting to China an amount of tar-sand-derived oil equal to the amount of Middle Eastern petroleum imported by the United States. Such a situation would, obviously, do approximately diddly-squat to alter the dynamics of American policy in the Middle East.
So I guess if we're discussing "energy independence" we'd first have to determine the specific shape of that independence and how it's achieved.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Imports from the Middle East comprise only 14% of US consumption these days. It seems one of the reasons the economic sanctions against Iran have been more successful than usual is because the US can now make up the difference of oil production.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Imports from the Middle East comprise only 14% of US consumption these days. It seems one of the reasons the economic sanctions against Iran have been more successful than usual is because the US can now make up the difference of oil production.
Sorry for the imprecision. Simply substitute in "petroleum imported from outside North America" for "Middle Eastern petroleum imported" in my previous post and you'll get the meaning I was going for.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
I think we will be energy independent quite soon.
Bakken Shale and Eagle Ford are so ridiculously huge we can hardly fathom them.
I read a report by the lead commodities analyst at Citigroup stating that the US will be the new middle east in 10 years.
I spent some time in North Dakota working with folks trying to meet the tremendous housing need out there. It is insane the amounts of growth going on. It is the wild west all over again. What are desperately needed are churches and ministers and missionaries, etc.
The abundance of energy could lead to a re-industrialization of the US.
I hope these developments would mean that the US would start to mind its own business globally.
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Britain had its energy bonanza about 30 years ago with the development of North Sea reserves, didn't it?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
True. Let me see if I can find some figures on the relative size of peak reserve estimates in the North Sea vs Bakken and Eagle Ford to show the scale. Also note that it is much simpler to extract onshore oil than offshore.
By energy independent, we are talking about the US becoming a net exporter of oil. We are looking at US domestic supply and Canadian imports reach over 20 mm barrels per day (gas or oil in oil equivalent) in 2020 from around 11.4 mm bpd today - while US demand could fall to under 17 mm bpd. Eventually even the US ban on crude exports should be lifted but only after a couple years of crude oversupply.
Fracking is here to stay (at least in the less densely populated areas) as the technology claims to get cleaner and cleaner and safer and safer. No politician wants to kill the goose laying the golden egg - locally or nationally.
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ruudy:
Fracking is here to stay (at least in the less densely populated areas) as the technology claims to get cleaner and cleaner and safer and safer. No politician wants to kill the goose laying the golden egg - locally or nationally.
Fracking is a technology and doesn't "claim" anything. The people trying to sell it, on the other hand . . . A useful counterpoint to these claims of clean safety and safe cleanness is this photo, supplied by those anti-capitalist pinkos at the Wall Street Journal.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Britain had its energy bonanza about 30 years ago with the development of North Sea reserves, didn't it?
YUP, and the North Sea oil & gas profits paid for a lot of the 1980's tax cuts. The revenues have fallen and the Treasury hasn't had the bottle to fill the gap with direct taxes, so indirect ones have been increased instead (whole 'nother topic).
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Well, taxes are already as low as they can get in the United States. I suppose our energy bonanza can go directly to oil executives in a much more efficient manner.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The UK has 300 years of coal reserves. Get frakking! God help us. When oil drops below $40 a barrel Saudi melts down. That was 20 years ago. The Chinese will pay for oil with arms CHEAPER than US ones.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Yes, Chinese arms may be cheaper, but they certainly are not better!
Actually, this thread is talking about production, but a significant step towards energy independence for the US will be conservation. By 2025 the average car will have to get around 54 miles per gallon (or about 23 km per liter).
I was listening to a program yesterday that pointed out we could possibly increase our energy efficiency by over 66% without much of a change in our lifestyle.
Think what this could mean with our carbon footprint.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Ruudy:
Fracking is here to stay (at least in the less densely populated areas) as the technology claims to get cleaner and cleaner and safer and safer. No politician wants to kill the goose laying the golden egg - locally or nationally.
Fracking is a technology and doesn't "claim" anything. The people trying to sell it, on the other hand . . . A useful counterpoint to these claims of clean safety and safe cleanness is this photo, supplied by those anti-capitalist pinkos at the Wall Street Journal.
Thanks to Vice President Cheney, the people doing frakking don't have to disclose or regulate what chemicals they are putting into the ground. It is step one in the tradition of letting extractive companies make a fortune and then leave a mess to be paid for by the taxpayer.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Yes, Chinese arms may be cheaper, but they certainly are not better!
Actually, this thread is talking about production, but a significant step towards energy independence for the US will be conservation. By 2025 the average car will have to get around 54 miles per gallon (or about 23 km per liter).
I was listening to a program yesterday that pointed out we could possibly increase our energy efficiency by over 66% without much of a change in our lifestyle.
Think what this could mean with our carbon footprint.
This energy independence is predicated on the US meeting these efficiency goals.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
As the United States has reduced its dependence on Middle Eastern oil, China has become increasingly reliant on it. Up till now China has been willing to let the United States Navy keep the sea lanes open, but look for more of a Chinese naval presence in the area. I think it was a year ago the Chinese Navy made a call at the Seychelles. The Chinese have also purchased several retired aircraft carriers and are conducting landings on the deck of the Liaoning. In other words, they are making moves to become a blue water navy. I also believe they have participated in the interdiction of Somali pirates off the Horn of Africa.
There will be a shift in the balance of power as the US continues to reduce its need for Middle Eastern Oil. The question is, will we be able to work cooperatively--as we have seen with the Somali pirates--or will we find ourselves in a confrontive relationship? I pray the former over the later.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Isn't fracking a disaster? National Geographic have just done a piece on it and it was far from glowing. Contaminated ground water, seismic problems, pollution on a mass scale, to name but a few issues. Hardly seems to be the holy grail.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
It worries me that it causes earthquakes.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I don't think it takes a genius to work out that cracking up the earths crust and pumping a load of toxins into it might just have a negative effect on the water table. I know the other issues are hotly disputed though.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
National Geographic have just done a piece on it
Is this the one? A bit old. Is there a more recent one?
[ 25. November 2012, 20:21: Message edited by: Ruudy ]
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
... Increased production using new technologies, like "frakking," along with decreased demand due to new efficiency standards and investments in renewable energy will mean the US will not only not have to import oil anymore, but might even become an exporter.
I suppose my first question is whether this seems very likely to happen ...
It's already happened. The USA already exports a lot of its oil. Oil always goes to where the market price is highest. That's the part missing from this story. It's not pump, pump, pump then build a wall around the USA, where we can be snug and happy with "our" oil. Oil is a free market commodity.
So in a real way it doesn't matter whether the USA is oil independent. There is no value in that fact alone, unless it's part of a military strategy. But for the military, cost has always been no object.
Meanwhile, it's nice for you and me to have cheap domestic oil prices no matter where the oil comes from. But it's not so nice for the producers, especially here in the USA, to have cheap oil by pumping it out of our backyards. Those USA producers make their money, guess where? Trading imports & exports.
*
Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Isn't the USA is essentially bankrupt? The rise in oil prices is one of the factors, complexly interwoven with its oil-based military adventures in the middle east. If its economy is ever to recover, it apparently needs cheap oil, or other energy sources. There is a wealth of info showing that increased energy costs are foundational to recessions. USA cannot afford to continue to spend billions per day on its wars while selling its debt to China.
So in the midst of all this doom and gloom, a spin doctor or seven decide they want to create some good news. That innovation, applied science, American goodness, Jesus and optimism will prevail and create a happier, prosperous time again (can't help snide the cynicism).
They may well do it. It would probably be cheaper and more ethical (in terms of immediate harm to humans) to subsidize multinational energy companies even more than they are already to dangerously extract oil and natural gas from questionable places. It will probably last a generation, and the natural environment will be rather destroyed. But creeping normalcy will take of that.
Myself, I'm not fond of the smell of hydrogen sulphide, dislike acid rain, worry about a warming planet, hate pine beetles, and wonder if anyone has any common sense at all.
[ 26. November 2012, 14:03: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
I'd be interested to know the figures
I would find it very easy to believe that the US can become energy independent in a very short space of time. I very much doubt it will happen though.
This is because, US efficiency standards for cars are decades behind the rest of the world.
If the US got serious about energy efficiency then demand would plummet. Whether this is enough to achieve energy independence with the expanding supply I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised. I would be surprised if there's the political will to make it happen.
And the UK situation was very well described by Sioni. Although, we are still reasonably independent (90% for oil and 70% for gas IIRC).
AFZ
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Isn't the USA is essentially bankrupt?
No?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
This is because, US efficiency standards for cars are decades behind the rest of the world.
Well, the legislation has been passed.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I was under the impression that the visitations took place over three Christmases. The Ghost of Christmas Present doesn't bugger off until after a children's 12th night party.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Isn't the USA is essentially bankrupt? The rise in oil prices is one of the factors, complexly interwoven with its oil-based military adventures in the middle east. If its economy is ever to recover, . . .
No, the U.S. isn't bankrupt. And you seem to be confusing its fiscal situation (i.e. the government balance sheet) with its financial situation (the general U.S. economy). In the case of the former, I don't think the term "bankrupt" can really apply to an entity which has the power to print its own money and whose debts are denominated in that money.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Thanks, Gwai.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
A brief internet search indicates that USA spending is far beyond its means, that somewhere in the vicinity of 75% of its debt is owned in other countries. Internet info about this go back at least 5 or 7 years, and the situation has gotten worse since, so it says. It is hard for a country to have political independence when its finances are controlled within other countries. I think this has a lot to do with the 'energy independence' idea.
There may be definitional questions with bankruptcy that I'm not sophisticated enough to parse. But if you have to borrow to finance the debt you already have, it begins to sound a lot like a consumer going to a bankruptcy trustee and asking for debts to be restructured. Except the country can cheat, and print the money. Sounds like a Ponzi scheme.
Back to energy, I live close enough to the Canadian tar sands that we can track the increase in acidity in bodies of water here. The tar sand contains lots of sulphur. We can also track the incidence of cancers in fish, and in people downstream and particularly to the east, the direction of prevailing winds. I know people say we need oil, but we also need a place to live, and so do the plants and animals. Too bad Jesus only came to save people and not life in general.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
A brief internet search indicates that USA spending is far beyond its means, that somewhere in the vicinity of 75% of its debt is owned in other countries.
Look up reliable sources. The US is not borrowing to pay interest on its loans. The US debt as percentage of GDP is actually quite reasonable compared to other industrialized countries, and most of the debt is owned by Americans.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Is this a reliable source? Usagovinfo.about.com? I found this one after prior post. If not, point to one that is please.
And if the foreign ownership of debt is not a large issue, why is it being made into such a large issue?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Is this a reliable source? Usagovinfo.about.com? I found this one after prior post. If not, point to one that is please.
Read it more closely. It doesn't say what you said it does.
quote:
And if the foreign ownership of debt is not a large issue, why is it being made into such a large issue?
Because republicans.
[ 26. November 2012, 17:05: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The US is not borrowing to pay interest on its loans. The US debt as percentage of GDP is actually quite reasonable compared to other industrialized countries, and most of the debt is owned by Americans.
I've started seeing this kind of argument from the leftish end of the spectrum recently. Frankly, I find it alarming. It is perfectly reasonable to ask whether this is the time to worry about the debt, but the notion that the debt is no longer important is as outrageous now as it was when Dick Cheney asserted it a decade ago. ISTM that Krugman may be jumping the shark with his newest column along these lines. As always, YMMV.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
