EPTGas prices, on the other hand...
US Economy: How worried are you?? - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
SaveYourSavior
United States1071 Posts
Gas prices, on the other hand... | ||
|
NotSupporting
Sweden1998 Posts
On July 16 2008 00:59 nA.Inky wrote: I'm not worried about it at all - infact I am basically happy about it. I do think the economy as we know it is screwed. We've built everything on oil and the oil is running out. That and we live insanely out of balance with the rest of the world (the environment, I mean). And the US is an empire, and like all empires, it must fall sooner or later. I think it will be sooner. Like the old Tool song says, "learn to swim." China is the next nation to "rule the world" | ||
|
suresh0t
United States295 Posts
| ||
|
randombum
United States2378 Posts
On July 16 2008 06:38 suresh0t wrote: we survived the great depression and i doubt this will be anything near that catastrophic. This is a recession and shit will balance out eventually. Yep, things will be worse for a while, but eventually we will be fine. | ||
|
{ToT}Strafe
Thailand7026 Posts
 | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
The situation with Fannie and Freddie is my main short term concern, though the rest of the major investment banks being shorted isn't particularly nice. The rescue package suggested by the administration is rather meh to me, like many said, that's just shoving more money into companies we know to have been completely shielded from reality having a dose of the said reality. Additional protection on Fannie and Freddie is necessary, considering that they are now a cornerstone of the US economy, but to make it so explicit is questionable. Of course, Paulson and Bernanke addressed that fear, but it is unlikely that they will be able to make this aid an implicit confidence booster, which is unlikely to work if the implicit guarantees thus far hasn't been enough. Long term, however, things are bound to bounce back [provided we don't vote Obama into the office] (I jest, but I don't want him in the office anyway). We aren't doing anything amazingly stupid to antagonize the market forces, and a recession is really just a timing for us to go for long term investments, which most would do being risk-aversive. If this fiscal with the oil doesn't warn the automakers about the necessity of seeking alternatives in the long term, I would be quite surprised. In all, something like this is a good lesson to all of us, and nothing we can't recover from in the long term. | ||
|
DanceCommander
United States1808 Posts
| ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
On July 16 2008 07:01 DanceCommander wrote: Yea, but what cured the Depression last time was a World War, which stimulated our economy into production and job availability. Whats it going to take to get us out of this recession? I'm curious if anyone here has any educated suggestions. A full scale conversion into green energy. There's a huge demand for manufacturing capacity and new experts in sustainable building. A boom in that area could be thrice beneficial: economically, environmentally, and energy independence. | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
On July 16 2008 07:04 GeneralStan wrote: A full scale conversion into green energy. There's a huge demand for manufacturing capacity and new experts in sustainable building. A boom in that area could be thrice beneficial: economically, environmentally, and energy independence. Why would something like that happen? I am not sure as to why you think that will be a key in getting out of the recession. You might as well as say that if we discover Fusion Containment we'll get lightsabers and unlimited energy. Sure, there is a vast amount of benefits in terms of switching to sustainable energy assuming we can do it at a good enough efficiency, but there is no motivation to do that barring the kind of scientific breakthrough that wins one Nobels. Our last few recessions were dealt with as market forces stablized and people came to their senses, it is unlikely that the recovery of this one will deviate from that norm. While the improvement of technology is certainly benefitial to the economy, to bank on that to get out of a recession is quixotic. | ||
|
DanceCommander
United States1808 Posts
On July 16 2008 07:04 GeneralStan wrote: A full scale conversion into green energy. There's a huge demand for manufacturing capacity and new experts in sustainable building. A boom in that area could be thrice beneficial: economically, environmentally, and energy independence. What you say is true, but a full conversion to green energy will be extremely difficult as well as inconvenient for most people in the US. But I'm sure you realize this. Personally I think its time to nationalize some oil companies  | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
On July 16 2008 07:15 DanceCommander wrote: What you say is true, but a full conversion to green energy will be extremely difficult as well as inconvenient for most people in the US. But I'm sure you realize this. Personally I think its time to nationalize some oil companies I'm sure there's plenty of ideas cooking for green energy, but they won't really become viable for the common guy for another 10-20 years. But I'd agree, that's probably how we un-fuck this whole thing. A war isn't gonna do shit for us, because we don't manufacture most of our stuff in country anymore like the 40s | ||
|
NerveGaming
Korea (South)36 Posts
| ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
a-game
Canada5214 Posts
On July 16 2008 07:42 mahnini wrote: What the fuck does "green energy" have anything to do with reviving the economy? it creates jobs... wind/solar/etc all need workers to manufacture/install/maintain alternative energy systems - if it was fully embraced by the country it would create a massive industry (it's already a notable industry in places like california and in the wind corridor (texas etc.) i believe?). i'm surprised you haven't heard of the theory before - it's a plank in obama's platform too btw. (creating green energy jobs - not a wholesale green energy conversion) | ||
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
Nuclear energy, now we're getting somewhere. But noooo, its radioactive and the terrorists will bomb it T_T i bet that if we stopped spending money on government waste and inefficencies and started spending it on other things like nuclear research we would be living in a world of infinite energy through fusion. Well not infinite, but close to it. i also think if we spent 1/10th of the energy and money and time going into foreign aid into medical research we would've discovered cures to everything and live forever. Unfortunately, we have government. | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
On July 16 2008 07:57 a-game wrote: it creates jobs... wind/solar/etc all need workers to manufacture/install/maintain alternative energy systems - if it was fully embraced by the country it would create a massive industry (it's already a notable industry in places like california and in the wind corridor (texas etc.) i believe?). i'm surprised you haven't heard of the theory before - it's a plank in obama's platform too btw. (creating green energy jobs - not a wholesale green energy conversion) I do hate Obama so. In economic terms though, I can apply "green energies" to nearly anything. The core is that government will lead a movement for such an industry, and then the industry will prosper as private companies start to go in on what is perceived to be a profitable business. That doesn't mean that Green Energy is the key to recovering from a recession, but that government support leading to a creation of a new, good market will be beneficial to the economy. Green energy simply fits in the rest of his policies. EDIT - Caller, biofuel is an alternative energy source, but not a part of green energy afaik. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
And if we all lived forever, we'd go bankrupt from SS .____. | ||
|
mAKiTO
Colombia4177 Posts
What will it take for this BS to change? | ||
|
MeriaDoKk
Chile1726 Posts
On July 16 2008 01:32 Hawk wrote: I agree for the most part, but I'm not too happy about the uncertainty in the future, haha. I don't think we're gonna collapse into a third world country by any means, but we certainly aren't going to be the untouchable superpower in any sense--military, economy, etc--and will have to actually give a shit about our surroundings and our fellow man. We're gonna have to think things out instead of being the stereotypical American cowboys and charging into everything. Good song too =] That sounded pretty good to me :S | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
On July 16 2008 08:05 Caller wrote: The green energy schemes are stupid and cost-ineffective. Biofuels? Please. Nuclear energy, now we're getting somewhere. But noooo, its radioactive and the terrorists will bomb it T_T i bet that if we stopped spending money on government waste and inefficencies and started spending it on other things like nuclear research we would be living in a world of infinite energy through fusion. Well not infinite, but close to it. i also think if we spent 1/10th of the energy and money and time going into foreign aid into medical research we would've discovered cures to everything and live forever. Unfortunately, we have government. For one, foreign aid has the potential to be as helpful to world health as research. There is AIDS and Cancer, neither of which is going to be solved by throwing money at it. On the other hand, diseases like malaria can be helped by implementing the most basic health measures in poor countries. The corruption in the process is regrettable, but those people are well and truly fucked if their stuck with thugs warlords and no aid. It also isn't as though our foreign aid numbers are overwhelming. If you want to start cutting off fat, start with the military. Also, fusion isn't going to be solved by throwing money at it. I agree with you that nuclear is a good option in the intermediary, but it alas is not renewable, so we can't switch to nuclear and expect that we'll be covered for the rest of history. There is also the sticky problem of what to do with the waste (though the waste is much less dangerous than many anti-nuclear advocates make it out to be). You're wrong about biofuels by the way. Please look into alternative energy before you knock it. Corn based ethanol is a ridiculous sham and one of the must destructive policies the Bush administration has pursued, and this is the coming from the administration of anti-science, Katrina and Iraq. However, you can't let the taint of corn spread into the goode biofuels. Sugarcane is working wonders in Brazil at the very moment, as the Brazilians on this board will attest. While the USA isn't in position to grow prodigious amounts of Sugarcane, we're certainly better off importing some than wasting valuable corn crop space on ethanol. Really we should be importing it from the Caribbean, where we will be both helping the local economy while helping our energy situation. However, agribusiness in this country has millions to spend buying conressmen. Another promising possiblity is algae. Algae is capable of generating 30x the energy of corn per acre (in biodiesal), it can be grown on otherwise useless land in greenhouses, uses salt water, and is a carbon neutral fuel (the carbon released in burning the diesal was taken out of the air by the algae in the first place). Celluslostic ethanol is the holy grail of biofuels. It will allow us to convert useless crops such as switchgrass and agricultural leftovers to fuel. The problem with this is that there has been no effecient method of breaking down celluose on a large scale yet discovered. I don't have more time to type now, but I'll address geothermal, solar, and wind when I get back. Basically, I think a balanced approach of solar, wind, bio, geothermal, nuclear and clever tricks can make us 100% based on non-fossil energy inside of 30 years. | ||
| ||
