EPTUS Economy: How worried are you?? - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Kennelie
United States2296 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 16 2008 02:09 Boblion wrote: I dont care at all, and people living outside the US shouldnt care at all too except if they have shares  .Euro is rising so it makes my poker br bigger. That is cool. -.- All of my poker money is currently in $... I should move some back to euro but I need a nice site /w euro currency. Dollar up up up plz? | ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4650 Posts
On July 16 2008 01:02 iLjh wrote: i'm worried, that's why im voting for obama and for all of you that are worried also, dont just complain without contributing, if you're over 18 register to vote because we can make a difference I'm worried, and I'm even more worried about Obama. The major problem with Obama's policy regarding the economy is the raising of tax. This is a bad time to start raising tax. He is suggesting a huge increase in tax for business owners. Business owners never eat the cost. That money comes from somewhere else such as their employees. People will get laid off. I'm all for revolutionary changes, but these kind of changes help no one except makes the situation worse. Obama needs a better economist adviser. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 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) Umm, so the idea is to invest in inefficient forms of energy and create jobs that are based on these inefficient sources and hope that this will bail the economy out or entice corporations to invest in them? On July 16 2008 08:06 Ecael wrote: 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. It's quite obvious that currently alternative energy sources are not profitable, otherwise, we'd already be using them practically. I don't think MORE government spending is what we want at the moment, especially on very unsure things like new energies. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On July 16 2008 08:39 FrozenArbiter wrote: -.- All of my poker money is currently in $... I should move some back to euro but I need a nice site /w euro currency. Dollar up up up plz? ^^ I was kidding my poker br is like 40 euros lol so it isnt really important for me. Micro sng ftw ! + Show Spoiler + ok i hide :O | ||
|
a-game
Canada5214 Posts
mahnini at the rate oil's been going up how long do you think it's going to be before renewable energy is profitable? if government just stepped in right now and kickstarted the switch i don't see the risk there at all, it's inevitable that the price of oil is only going to go up unless you kill off a bunch of population. and the price of renewable energy can only go down from where it is now as the technologies become cheaper and more honed. anyways like others said other than an energy revolution what else will kickstart the economy? world war 3? EDIT: i'm always open to being informed or politely corrected | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070710/ai_n19354074 The overall impact of sugarcane fuel on Brazilian crop growing is small in comparison to the amount of land cleared for soy production. Soy production in Brazil is being spurred by increased demand as US farmers switch to corn for ethanol production. I say again, corn ethanol is an unadulterated sham with nothing but disastrous downsides and one recent human activity that has driven global warming to a precipitious edge. The Amazon is going down for biofuels, but its American biofuels. Their sugarcane ethanol industry is an example worthy of admiration. Instead of corn in this country, we could do well to grow hemp for the manufacture of hemp seed oil for conversion to ethanol. The advantages are three fold - Hemp is an excellent source of textiles, hemp seed husks are useful livestock feed, we get ethanol out of it, and the damn stuff can be grown in otherwise unfarmable land. Corn is a dirty pathetic joke and a betrayal of the potential of biofuels. | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
I don't disagree that there is a great necessity for the exploration of alternative fuels, but to hail that as being able to drive the economy into moving forward is far-fetched. Ultimately one part of the economy is being dug up to aid the other. People should keep in mind that the current price of oil is artificial and more of a byproduct of inflation and a weak dollar rather than an issue with supply, that alone makes a full pursual of alternative fuels unsound without a large support in form of government. We haven't needed a kickstart during the 70s, we won't need it now. What we need to get out of this particular recession is a correction of price sensitivity and common sense (oh God SUVs eat up gas, gas costing $4 a gallon, maybe we shouldn't bother with them). The kind of projects being called for to 'jumpstart' the economy is like the kind of works of Roosevelt, many of them proving to be monsters in the long run. | ||
|
RoieTRS
United States2569 Posts
| ||
|
ramen247
United States1256 Posts
and guys... its just a recession. i think theres too big of a deal thats caused by sensational news crap. like a year ago, global warming was a big issue and everyone was whining and anticipating, but global warming is like a past trend now. Society tends to find new things to worry about. 2 | ||
ManaBlue
Canada10458 Posts
I'm finally in the phase of my life when I'm making some money which I can invest, and everything is on sale!  You'd be hard pressed to find a company that is over valued right now.If these companies were pairs of jeans, people would be flooding to the malls to buy them, but because they are investments with (very arbitrarily) fluctuating values, they freak out. The level headed and patient investors will make a killing in this market. Just keep your chin up and buy buy buy. On the flip side, if you're a borrower with tons of debt, interest rates are bottoming out at early 2000 levels. Fucking sweet if you ask me. The only people that get screwed in these markets are the old affluent who were heavily invested in over priced securities when the bottom came out. Sucks for them. Great for us.  | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
On July 16 2008 10:24 Ecael wrote: No, in terms of new energies, we absolutely need government spending. Even if I don't agree with Obama's ideas and platform, he is right in that matter. Without a surety in government sponsorship and creation of a market, it is highly unlikely for us to see private companies pitching in. I don't disagree that there is a great necessity for the exploration of alternative fuels, but to hail that as being able to drive the economy into moving forward is far-fetched. Ultimately one part of the economy is being dug up to aid the other. People should keep in mind that the current price of oil is artificial and more of a byproduct of inflation and a weak dollar rather than an issue with supply, that alone makes a full pursual of alternative fuels unsound without a large support in form of government. We haven't needed a kickstart during the 70s, we won't need it now. What we need to get out of this particular recession is a correction of price sensitivity and common sense (oh God SUVs eat up gas, gas costing $4 a gallon, maybe we shouldn't bother with them). The kind of projects being called for to 'jumpstart' the economy is like the kind of works of Roosevelt, many of them proving to be monsters in the long run. I defy you to point to an example where building solid infastructure has been an onus later down the line. And don't hold out hope that Gas is going down without a significant reduction in demand. It's true that the increases for now are the result of speculation, but it isn't idle speculation - the rise of Indian and Chinese car cultures are a good reason for demand to be increasing dramatically soon. There is no extra supply to alleviate increased demand, so high prices are here to stay. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 16 2008 10:32 ManaBlue wrote: The only people that get screwed in these markets are the old affluent who were heavily invested in over priced securities when the bottom came out. or everyone who doesn't have money lol | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
On July 16 2008 10:57 GeneralStan wrote: I defy you to point to an example where building solid infastructure has been an onus later down the line. And don't hold out hope that Gas is going down without a significant reduction in demand. It's true that the increases for now are the result of speculation, but it isn't idle speculation - the rise of Indian and Chinese car cultures are a good reason for demand to be increasing dramatically soon. There is no extra supply to alleviate increased demand, so high prices are here to stay. You seem to be misunderstanding me. I am agreeing with the necessity of alternative fuel source, but I am disagreeing with the method of pursuing the said source. Even if the high prices are here to stay, which is arguable considering that we have been unable to tap into the production of Russia proper for crude, it isn't a huge deal. In fact, that would be a good thing, with a high price here to stay the incentive would be made without the necessity of a surety in government protection and interference. To reiterate, I do want the movement from oil as an energy source, but I have nothing but dislike for the idea of it being propelled by the government. There are cases where governmental encouragement is necessary, this isn't one of them, let common sense rise and do the work without the additional pointless spending of the government. As for Roosevelt, it should be pretty obvious I wasn't talking about infrastructure, but the kind of programs devised to serve the purposes of the middle class. Manablue, some will argue that Freddie and Fannie are both still overvalued right now | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14911 Posts
They've lost like 1/6 of their value ouch | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On July 16 2008 10:24 Ecael wrote: No, in terms of new energies, we absolutely need government spending. Even if I don't agree with Obama's ideas and platform, he is right in that matter. Without a surety in government sponsorship and creation of a market, it is highly unlikely for us to see private companies pitching in. Wrong, absolutely wrong. You can see this now in the car industry, diesel cars, biodiesel, hydrogen, advanced weight saving design and material all designed and implemented by private companies. When market requires a service or product, private companies will always exploit that need. If we are talking about new energy sources to replace coal factories and such, good luck. As far as I know nothing comes close the the efficiency of coal burning energy except for nuclear plants. You can invent and put up all the windmills, solar panels, and geothermal do-thingies you want, they will be more expensive and produce less power than what is being used now. Spending for the sake of spending is not necessary. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On July 16 2008 11:19 Ecael wrote: To reiterate, I do want the movement from oil as an energy source, but I have nothing but dislike for the idea of it being propelled by the government. That is absolutely right and the opposite of what i quoted before. | ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
| ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
Solar panels are quite useful in Cali for private use, and I would imagine for corporate use as well. Wind energy has demonstrated efficiency, if not as high as nuclear, in Germany and various European countries. However, a key thing to keep in mind in regards to investment in them is that the energy industry are subsidizing private solar panels, much like they encourage saving energy. When the market is good enough the private sector will move in on its own, the government should be more concerned with getting out of their way than trying to create their vision of what the market should be, which invariably screws up. | ||
| ||
