EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1293
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
raga4ka
Bulgaria5679 Posts
On September 17 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote: I think this oil stuff is really nonsense. You guys have enough resources on your own continent anyway and if the US wanted to have middle-eastern oil they could've just bought it. I simply don't see why the US would need to wage wars for resources. I thought US wagged wars when other countries tried to sale their oil in something other then US dollars ($) , like i've read that Iraq in the past tried to sell their oil for euros and Lybia for gold ? That way oil gets a lot more expensive for the americans and the value of the dollar drops ? In Syria though it probably has to do with Iran or just the positioning of Syria in general is good for oil pipes to get from the middle east in to EU ? I don't know how much of that is true , it's what i read on the internet for the purpose of this wars .... | ||
|
Introvert
United States4955 Posts
On September 17 2014 03:04 Nyxisto wrote: I think this oil stuff is really nonsense. You guys have enough resources on your own continent anyway and if the US wanted to have middle-eastern oil they could've just bought it. I simply don't see why the US would need to wage wars for resources. There's a lot of political opposition to domestic drilling in the US. Polls are generally supportive, but there are some powerful groups and people in the oppose column. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On September 17 2014 03:21 raga4ka wrote: I thought US wagged wars when other countries tried to sale their oil in something other then US dollars ($) , like i've read that Iraq in the past tried to sell their oil for euros and Lybia for gold ? That way oil gets a lot more expensive for the americans and the value of the dollar drops ? In Syria though it probably has to do with Iran or just the positioning of Syria in general is good for oil pipes to get from the middle east in to EU ? I don't know how much of that is true , it's what i read on the internet for the purpose of this wars .... Its not just that oil gets more expensive if people can sell oil in something other than dollars, its also that the value of USD goes down. The Petrodollar lets the Federal Reserve print more money without significantly raising inflation. Since there will always (in the next 30-50 years) be high demand for oil, there will also be high demand for USD almost regardless of how much they print. But if suddenly OPEC can start selling oil for things other than USD, this whole scheme falls apart, and inflation skyrockets in the US. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4955 Posts
On September 17 2014 03:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: That and we tend to treasure our National Parks. That and they generate billions of dollars every year from tourism. National Parks are some of my favorite places. It's wrong to say that the only places we have oil are national parks (these same groups don't want us to drill offshore, either). The country is huge, we have lots of land, but some people don't want us to use any more of it. I''m not sure the last time I heard someone say "we have to drill in Yosemite!" or "More oil from Yellowstone!" To be clear, as a general rule I would oppose NP drilling, but some people don't want us to drill anywhere. And that's very different. Edit again: Also, we don't need the administration just declaring more sites "protected" so as to avoid drilling or use of resources. Not every forest needs to be a safe zone from drilling. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On September 17 2014 03:41 Introvert wrote: National Parks are some of my favorite places. It's wrong to say that the only places we have oil are national parks (these same groups don't want us to drill offshore, either). The country is huge, we have lots of land, but some people don't want us to use any more of it. I''m not sure the last time I heard someone say "we have to drill in Yosemite!" or "More oil from Yellowstone!" Romney, Ted Cruz, I believe even McCain said he supported drilling in Protected areas. Our country is indeed huge, but why drill when parts of the Southwest can support massive(and some of the largest in the world) solar farms, and then further east in the plain states Wind Farms? Then think of solar panels on every US household and buildings that can support them and wham we make Germany look like it is barely off the starting block. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Us_pv_annual_may2004.jpg/1024px-Us_pv_annual_may2004.jpg) | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
If the US wants a highly valued US dollar the FED can increase the interest rate. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4955 Posts
On September 17 2014 03:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Romney, Ted Cruz, I believe even McCain said he supported drilling in Protected areas. Our country is indeed huge, but why drill when parts of the Southwest can support massive(and some of the largest in the world) solar farms, and then further east in the plain states Wind Farms? Why not both? National Parks are not the only protected areas. As I just edited above, I don't think that just because the government put a lock on an area that it is to remain as it is for time immemorial. we should be using the resources available to us. Wind and Solar have their own issues (they too are horrifyingly ugly, or kill birds). Not to mention the inconsistent power supply. I know you are always posting the Green stuff... but know that we have energy needs now that can't be met efficiently by existing technology. We have lots of places to drill, let's use them. But this discussion was off-topic. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 17 2014 03:41 Introvert wrote: National Parks are some of my favorite places. It's wrong to say that the only places we have oil are national parks (these same groups don't want us to drill offshore, either). The country is huge, we have lots of land, but some people don't want us to use any more of it. I''m not sure the last time I heard someone say "we have to drill in Yosemite!" or "More oil from Yellowstone!" To be clear, as a general rule I would oppose NP drilling, but some people don't want us to drill anywhere. And that's very different. Edit again: Also, we don't need the administration just declaring more sites "protected" so as to avoid drilling or use of resources. Not every forest needs to be a safe zone from drilling. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/can-world-really-set-aside-half-planet-wildlife-180952379/?all&no-ist It doesn't matter if you never drill in a national park. EO Wilson's "island theory of biogeography" explains why national parks and all confined natural spaces lose species at a steady rate. You need vast connected natural landscapes in order to retain the biodiversity and natural beauty of the national parks as they exist today. Unfortunately you can't just say, well we will drill everywhere except these cordoned off areas, because nature doesn't work that way. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On September 17 2014 03:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Romney, Ted Cruz, I believe even McCain said he supported drilling in Protected areas. Our country is indeed huge, but why drill when parts of the Southwest can support massive(and some of the largest in the world) solar farms, and then further east in the plain states Wind Farms? Then think of solar panels on every US household and buildings that can support them and wham we make Germany look like it is barely off the starting block. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert + Show Spoiler + Because transferring that solar or wind power is hard. Sure, you can generate tons of solar power in the southwest, but even the best power lines are nowhere near 100% efficient. You also need to remember there's no good longterm storage mechanism. Even the southwest has cloudy days now and then, and it's night-time ~1/2 the day. I personally think nuclear power is the answer, specifically using Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. They're very safe, produce only short-term waste, fuel is plentiful, and cannot be used in nuclear weapons proliferation. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On September 17 2014 04:00 Millitron wrote: Because transferring that solar or wind power is hard. Sure, you can generate tons of solar power in the southwest, but even the best power lines are nowhere near 100% efficient. You also need to remember there's no good longterm storage mechanism. Even the southwest has cloudy days now and then, and it's night-time ~1/2 the day. I personally think nuclear power is the answer, specifically using Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. They're very safe, produce only short-term waste, fuel is plentiful, and cannot be used in nuclear weapons proliferation. I agree with Nuclear power but American R&D is more in the hands of private enterprise now rather than evened out by Government research hubs. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
On September 17 2014 03:53 Nyxisto wrote: I don't understand this "Petrodollar" argument. It just feels like something people with tinfoil hats scream. If the US dollar loses value they can import less, but exports go up which may even help reduce the deficit. There are pros and cons to over- and undervalued currencies. There are also monetary policies available if the US wants the dollar to go up in value. You don't actually need to wage wars and have the world trade oil in dollars for that. The whole argument sounds really weird. if nyxisto doesn't want to understand a theory he will often label the proponents of the theory conspiracy theorists to avoid cognitive dissonance (he's good at avoiding it... notice f.ex how contradictory his positions on russia / ukraine and israel / palestine is). i don't mind that he avoids it, but i do mind the choice of words. people in power do conspire against the unwashed masses (which nyxisto def is a part of), pathologizing the speculation of how it's done, at every turn, is foolish! the tin foil hat should only be donned on special occasions. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4955 Posts
On September 17 2014 03:57 IgnE wrote: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/can-world-really-set-aside-half-planet-wildlife-180952379/?all&no-ist It doesn't matter if you never drill in a national park. EO Wilson's "island theory of biogeography" explains why national parks and all confined natural spaces lose species at a steady rate. You need vast connected natural landscapes in order to retain the biodiversity and natural beauty of the national parks as they exist today. Unfortunately you can't just say, well we will drill everywhere except these cordoned off areas, because nature doesn't work that way. Of course not- but as I've said before, we can't view things statically. As technology improves, we will have less of a need for these sites. We protect the NP for us, and the tourism dollars, while we continue to work on better methods. Let's both improve our technology and use what we already have. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On September 17 2014 03:53 Nyxisto wrote: I don't understand this "Petrodollar" argument. It just feels like something people with tinfoil hats scream. If the US dollar loses value they can import less, but exports go up which may even help reduce the deficit. There are pros and cons to over- and undervalued currencies. There are also monetary policies available if the US wants the dollar to go up in value. You don't actually need to wage wars and have the world trade oil in dollars for that. The whole argument sounds really weird. If the US wants a highly valued US dollar the FED can increase the interest rate. Due to wage standards and other regulations, even with undervalued USD, exports will not increase appreciably. There's a reason that companies ship labor to Southeast Asia and India, and its not that USD is worth too much. Plus the petrodollar is just one thing leading to more war, especially in the Middle East. There's also massive amounts of lobbying from the Military-Industrial complex, there's politicians and the media fear-mongering for ratings, and there's the misguided idea that Western Democracy is the best social structure for every culture ever. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On September 17 2014 04:05 Introvert wrote: Of course not- but as I've said before, we can't view things statically. As technology improves, we will have less of a need for these sites. We protect the NP for us, and the tourism dollars, while we continue to work on better methods. Let's both improve our technology and use what we already have. National parks are also just nice to have  | ||
|
Introvert
United States4955 Posts
As I said, I love NP (I love the outdoors, backpacking, camping, hiking, etc). But I'm not an environut. I think we can avoid drilling in the NP, if we as a nation agree to it (which I think we would). We have lots of other places though. Point is, there's a middle ground somewhere. But this was all off-topic. This is a decent example for Nyxisto, however. This is why we don't just drill! | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On September 17 2014 04:18 Introvert wrote: As I said, I love NP (I love the outdoors, backpacking, camping, hiking, etc). But I'm not an environut. I think we can avoid drilling in the NP, if we as a nation agree to it (which I think we would). We have lots of other places though. Point is, there's a middle ground somewhere. But this was all off-topic. This is a decent example for Nyxisto, however. This is why we don't just drill! It's not just National Parks that are a concern. There's water contamination concerns from a lot of ground drilling and there's water resource destruction concerns from offshore drilling. BP Oil Spill anyone? It's hard to say what being an "environut" means in this context. Because being against all those things (without a lot of regulation) makes you more liberal than the Republican Party and a decent section of the Democratic Party. There's a ton of money to be made by completely ignoring environmental concerns, and that money talks. Being reasonable is very left-wing in this context. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On September 17 2014 03:37 Millitron wrote: Its not just that oil gets more expensive if people can sell oil in something other than dollars, its also that the value of USD goes down. The Petrodollar lets the Federal Reserve print more money without significantly raising inflation. Since there will always (in the next 30-50 years) be high demand for oil, there will also be high demand for USD almost regardless of how much they print. But if suddenly OPEC can start selling oil for things other than USD, this whole scheme falls apart, and inflation skyrockets in the US. If this is true, then why don't OPEC, Russia, China, and the rest of the globe that doesn't like us decide to trade petroleum in a different currency like the Euro? If what you say is true, it would put the US in a significantly diminished position of financial imperialism, which I'm sure is what they're all rooting for, so why not do it? It would be some ironic justice, to say the least. | ||
| ||
