US Oil Independence (re: Ukraine/Russia conflict)

[icanthearyou 4,462]

25 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

Great post and accurate. "If" the political class could get past their own individual commercial interests we could truly move a lot farther away from fossil fuel use and to a more diversified energy portfolio. We need to become independent AND work towards a cleaner tomorrow. 

Unfortunately, too many in the political class are outright owned by the capital class.  As long as we argue CRT, Race, Abortion, Communism, Fascism, Masks, etc., etc., we have no chance.  We are divided (society at large).  They have conquered.

However, you nailed it.  The REAL problems is a political class completely absorbed by self-interest.  They are openly, unabashedly for sale. 

We MUST restore principles and a social conscience.  It cannot be done until we limit money in government.  That can never be done (short of a cataclysmic event) as long as we buy into the idea that we are staunchly on the side of a party or ideology.  When integrity and character motivate us as voters again, only then will society at large have any hope of reviving our shared happiness and prosperity.

We aren't stupid people but, we are feeding the beast.  They, the political and capital classes aren't even spending anymore to influence us.  They have monetized that effort and profit by it.  We watch, we buy the merch, we donate.  It is very expensive entertainment.  I hope our children don't mind paying for it.

I'm not really sure about the third party anymore.  The Tea Party proved to be worse that the existing manifestations.  WE HAVE TO GET CONTROL OVER MONEY IN THE PROCESS.  Pure corruption has the government of the people on life support.  Money isn't speech.  Money isn't happiness.  Money IS power.  The government should be our protection against undue power.  Currently government represents power regardless of whether it is just/unjust, legitimate/illegitimate.

If we truly want to MAGA, we have to stop being entertained and value education (with the warts, free from ideologues).  We have to stop teaching our children that being prosperous is more important that being good, kind, caring people.  We have to stop worshiping wealth.  We have to get money out of the political process.  When we stop believing in justice, fairness, equity, we have been led away from who we are.  By who we are, I mean, our founding fathers weren't perfect.  They knew that.  The ideals weren't some concrete static moment as the Federalist Society would have us believe.  Who we are is more about the common principles/ideals of who we want to be/can be.  Our founding is about these principles and, the effort to be idealistic and realist at the same time.  Which is why, I believe we should all be progressive while, being enough of a conservative to know that we must move carefully, methodically towards a better day for all as to not undermine our own efforts.

[autigeremt 6,560]

5 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Unfortunately, too many in the political class are outright owned by the capital class.  As long as we argue CRT, Race, Abortion, Communism, Fascism, Masks, etc., etc., we have no chance.  We are divided (society at large).  They have conquered.

However, you nailed it.  The REAL problems is a political class completely absorbed by self-interest.  They are openly, unabashedly for sale. 

We MUST restore principles and a social conscience.  It cannot be done until we limit money in government.  That can never be done (short of a cataclysmic event) as long as we buy into the idea that we are staunchly on the side of a party or ideology.  When integrity and character motivate us as voters again, only then will society at large have any hope of reviving our shared happiness and prosperity.

We aren't stupid people but, we are feeding the beast.  They, the political and capital classes aren't even spending anymore to influence us.  They have monetized that effort and profit by it.  We watch, we buy the merch, we donate.  It is very expensive entertainment.  I hope our children don't mind paying for it.

I'm not really sure about the third party anymore.  The Tea Party proved to be worse that the existing manifestations.  WE HAVE TO GET CONTROL OVER MONEY IN THE PROCESS.  Pure corruption has the government of the people on life support.  Money isn't speech.  Money isn't happiness.  Money IS power.  The government should be our protection against undue power.  Currently government represents power regardless of whether it is just/unjust, legitimate/illegitimate.

If we truly want to MAGA, we have to stop being entertained and value education (with the warts, free from ideologues).  We have to stop teaching our children that being prosperous is more important that being good, kind, caring people.  We have to stop worshiping wealth.  We have to get money out of the political process.  When we stop believing in justice, fairness, equity, we have been led away from who we are.  By who we are, I mean, our founding fathers weren't perfect.  They knew that.  The ideals weren't some concrete static moment as the Federalist Society would have us believe.  Who we are is more about the common principles/ideals of who we want to be/can be.  Our founding is about these principles and, the effort to be idealistic and realist at the same time.  Which is why, I believe we should all be progressive while, being enough of a conservative to know that we must move carefully, methodically towards a better day for all as to not undermine our own efforts.

Post of the year in here. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

17 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

We have to stop worshiping wealth. 

I've tried to articulate my feelings on this a few times, but didn't like anything I typed. Short version is I feel like guaranteeing healthcare and a fair shot at a decent education would do a lot to erode that worship. 

As a parent of two small children who struggles not to view the future of this country as very much an "either you're in or you're out" proposition, with the ability to "get in" evaporating for those who aren't already there and the ability to "stay in" becoming ever more precarious for all except the 1%ers, I don't worship wealth as much as I feel a duty to my children to amass a safety net not provided by my government. I mean, it honestly feels like most Americans are one bad diagnosis or one particularly traumatic accident away from losing it all. Perhaps overly dramatic or even ignorant, but that's how it feels. 

Anyway. Perhaps knowing that we'll be okay as long as we conduct ourselves in a reasonable manner would eliminate a lot of the desperation to attain or even project wealth. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

I've tried to articulate my feelings on this a few times, but didn't like anything I typed. Short version is I feel like guaranteeing healthcare and a fair shot at a decent education would do a lot to erode that worship. 

As a parent of two small children who struggles not to view the future of this country as very much an "either you're in or you're out" proposition, with the ability to "get in" evaporating for those who aren't already there and the ability to "stay in" becoming ever more precarious for all except the 1%ers, I don't worship wealth as much as I feel a duty to my children to amass a safety net not provided by my government. I mean, it honestly feels like most Americans are one bad diagnosis or one particularly traumatic accident away from losing it all. Perhaps overly dramatic or even ignorant, but that's how it feels. 

Anyway. Perhaps knowing that we'll be okay as long as we conduct ourselves in a reasonable manner would eliminate a lot of the desperation to attain or even project wealth. 

I hear you.  Don't know.  I do know our children watch us and learn.  I try to teach mine one simple concept.  Job 1 is to be a decent, kind, caring, empathetic human being.  All the success or fame in the world is meaningless unless you are a good person.  Sadly, I believe that will leave them at somewhat of a disadvantage in today's world. 

I believe universal healthcare is as important as a symbol as it is in daily reality.  I believe it would reinforce the kind of values we truly stand for.  Our children could see humanity in action.  We should explain to them what it means and, that it should never be taken for granted.

I don't want mine to believe that this is a dog-eat-dog world, an every man for himself, might makes right world.  Whether naive or not, I want my child to believe that right makes might.  I want them to know that often they should subordinate self-interest to the greater good. 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

49 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I hear you.  Don't know.  I do know our children watch us and learn.  I try to teach mine one simple concept.  Job 1 is to be a decent, kind, caring, empathetic human being.  All the success or fame in the world is meaningless unless you are a good person.  Sadly, I believe that will leave them at somewhat of a disadvantage in today's world. 

I believe universal healthcare is as important as a symbol as it is in daily reality.  I believe it would reinforce the kind of values we truly stand for.  Our children could see humanity in action.  We should explain to them what it means and, that it should never be taken for granted.

I don't want mine to believe that this is a dog-eat-dog world, an every man for himself, might makes right world.  Whether naive or not, I want my child to believe that right makes might.  I want them to know that often they should subordinate self-interest to the greater good. 

Yes yes yes to all of that. 

Fortunately, in my mind, the things you just talked about and wealth are not mutually exclusive concepts. 

 

 

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

22 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Yes yes yes to all of that. 

Fortunately, in my mind, the things you just talked about and wealth are not mutually exclusive concepts. 

 

 

 

 

True.  It's about priorities. 

[homersapien 11,346]

10 hours ago, McLoofus said:

I've tried to articulate my feelings on this a few times, but didn't like anything I typed. Short version is I feel like guaranteeing healthcare and a fair shot at a decent education would do a lot to erode that worship. 

As a parent of two small children who struggles not to view the future of this country as very much an "either you're in or you're out" proposition, with the ability to "get in" evaporating for those who aren't already there and the ability to "stay in" becoming ever more precarious for all except the 1%ers, I don't worship wealth as much as I feel a duty to my children to amass a safety net not provided by my government. I mean, it honestly feels like most Americans are one bad diagnosis or one particularly traumatic accident away from losing it all. Perhaps overly dramatic or even ignorant, but that's how it feels. 

Anyway. Perhaps knowing that we'll be okay as long as we conduct ourselves in a reasonable manner would eliminate a lot of the desperation to attain or even project wealth. 

I have always tended to "preach" the concept of accumulating wealth to my (God) children as an issue of security - specifically, they have a responsibility to take care of themselves (as a minimum) - if not other loved ones. 

For most people, it is consumption that needs to be managed, more so than the accumulation of more possessions. As my father used to say , if you work hard, spend less than you make and invest the difference, you can't help but to accumulate wealth over time.

And you are right about the pitiful state of most Americans financially, which is typically some combination of circumstances and financial ignorance.  We need to address both as a society.

Edited March 2, 2022 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,759]

23 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I am truly very sorry but, you have to make an effort.  Sure, domestic production of goods is better.  However, relative costs are fundamental to the discussion. 

It is complex.  Specifics matter.  You have to go deeper than the Partisan Politics Entertainment Channels. 

 

I’m trying to understand the complexities of the world market after IEA released 60 million barrels of oil reserve and the price of oil shot to $105 a barrel.  It appears the fear is losing Russia’s daily oil production, however, Russia isn’t worried as it has it’s prime customer willing and able to accept as much oil as they can produce.  The only ones worried are the people that want the lowest price per barrel oil as possible no matter who they buy it from.

The SPR release seems to have the opposite of the intended effect on oil prices, and that’s not terribly surprising. An announced SPR release is also a signal to the market that the market is in trouble. Global crude oil inventories are low, and demand is soaring. And now, Russia’s oil supply—or at least part of it—could soon be unavailable to the Western world should additional sanctions become necessary. The announcement of the release of barrels from the SPR only highlights those issues.

The IEA, however, has said that the SPR release sends “a unified and strong message to global oil markets that there will be no shortfall in supplies as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Oil-Prices-Soar-Despite-News-Of-Strategic-Petroleum-Reserve-Release.html

No shortfall in supplies, you will just have to pay more for it.  So, the question still remains; why not, in the short term, produce our own oil and stop financing the war in Ukraine by buying Russian oil?

Knowing your knowledge of the global oil market, I’m sure you saw this coming.

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

It is consumption that needs to be managed, not the accumulation of wealth.  As my father used to say , if you work hard, spend less than you make and invest the difference, you can't help but to accumulate wealth.

And you are right about the pitiful state of most Americans financially, which is typically some combination of circumstances and financial ignorance.  We need to address both as a society.

Louder for the folks in the back...

...he yells from the back.

(We're doing okay in spite of ourselves.)

[autigeremt 6,560]

"It is consumption that needs to be managed....."

 

Code for more chains on individual freedom. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I have always tended to "preach" the concept of accumulating wealth to my (God) children as an issue of security - specifically, they have a responsibility to take care of themselves (as a minimum) - if not other loved ones. 

It is consumption that needs to be managed, not the accumulation of wealth.  As my father used to say , if you work hard, spend less than you make and invest the difference, you can't help but to accumulate wealth.

And you are right about the pitiful state of most Americans financially, which is typically some combination of circumstances and financial ignorance.  We need to address both as a society.

Yep.  The truly good feelings of wealth are not about consumption or, creating envy.  Those good feelings are about security (living without the anxiety of what will I do when the wolf is at the door is very peaceful) and, sharing.

[autigeremt 6,560]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Yep.  The truly good feelings of wealth are not about consumption or, creating envy.  Those good feelings are about security (living without the anxiety of what will I do when the wolf is at the door is very peaceful) and, sharing.

Sharing as a decision not forced. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

16 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

Sharing as a decision not forced. 

I have to disagree with this.  I believe wealth redistribution is critical in order to maintain democracy and capitalism. 

What I don't like is redistribution in favor of the capitalists.  They are suppose to supply the capital themselves.

Bailouts, borrowing at almost no cost, subsidies, low tax rate for capital gains...  too much for too long.

We are not $30 Trillion + in the hole because of the poor.

I don't believe taxes would be much of an issue if, we could see more dollars coming back to communities rather than allowing a few to amass ridiculous fortunes.  In other words, most of us don't see much benefit versus what we pay.  Those at the top do.   They invest bigly in keeping it going.  The return on investment estimates are mind blowing.

I'm not sure that's what you meant though.

[I_M4_AU 7,759]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

I believe wealth redistribution is critical in order to maintain democracy and capitalism. 

Could you elaborate this statement?  

 

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

I don't believe taxes would be much of an issue if, we could see more dollars coming back to communities rather than allowing a few to amass ridiculous fortunes.

America has given a huge amount of money back to the communities, it just is eaten up in the implementation of the programs the government has fostered.  It’s been this way for centuries starting with the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the 1824.  People make a lot of money implementing government programs.  It should stop, I agree.

[Grumps 3,693]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I have to disagree with this.  I believe wealth redistribution is critical in order to maintain democracy and capitalism. 

What I don't like is redistribution in favor of the capitalists.  They are suppose to supply the capital themselves.

Bailouts, borrowing at almost no cost, subsidies, low tax rate for capital gains...  too much for too long.

We are not $30 Trillion + in the hole because of the poor.

I don't believe taxes would be much of an issue if, we could see more dollars coming back to communities rather than allowing a few to amass ridiculous fortunes.  In other words, most of us don't see much benefit versus what we pay.  Those at the top do.   They invest bigly in keeping it going.  The return on investment estimates are mind blowing.

I'm not sure that's what you meant though.

Taxation is certainly a necessary redistribution of wealth. I probably have no business speaking for emt, but my take on forced sharing would be doing things like using tax revenue to forgive student loan debt. To me, there is a difference between using/increasing tax revenue to help people and using/increasing tax revenue to buy votes.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Could you elaborate this statement?  

 

America has given a huge amount of money back to the communities, it just is eaten up in the implementation of the programs the government has fostered.  It’s been this way for centuries starting with the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the 1824.  People make a lot of money implementing government programs.  It should stop, I agree.

Democracy is, IMHO, already threatened by the wealthiest Americans.  They are very effectively buying the government, lobbyist, PACs, campaign finance, outright corruption.   How much legislation is actually written by lobbies?   I just don't believe we should have a class with so much power.  I don't mind them making money (or keeping it) the old-fashion way but, I object to the grotesque extent to which they have tipped the scales, consolidated economic activity, restrict innovation, do not pay their fair share.

As for capitalism, I believe relative equality is essential.  I believe Marx was right about his definition of the weakness of capitalism (essentially that the capitalist goal is to thwart competition and, create monopoly).  Relative equality ensures that we have both an abundance of producers and consumers.  It creates balance, helps maintain predictable equilibrium.  It keeps us from experiencing radical boom/bust cycles.

Relative equality does a lot to keep society peaceful, prosperous.  I think we need to consider the cost of social programs while also considering the cost of not doing anything.  Is it cheaper to feed, educate, house those in need or, to police, adjudicate, incarcerate, to keep spending on generations because we won't break the cycle of poverty.

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 minute ago, Grumps said:

Taxation is certainly a necessary redistribution of wealth. I probably have no business speaking for emt, but my take on forced sharing would be doing things like using tax revenue to forgive student loan debt. To me, there is a difference between using/increasing tax revenue to help people and using/increasing tax revenue to buy votes.

I don't believe it is being used to buy votes at all but, it does mask the real problem which is the cost of higher education.  Personally, I believe we cannot spend enough on education.  It is an investment with a return.  I don't believe we should be subsidizing various forms of private education.

Then again, I don't like privatizing most governmental functions.  The private sector seems too adept at manipulating government.  For decades we have decreased the federal workforce (versus total population) in the effort to "shrink" the government.  All we have accomplished through privatization is a massive increase in cost. 

[Grumps 3,693]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

I don't believe it is being used to buy votes at all but, it does mask the real problem which is the cost of higher education.  Personally, I believe we cannot spend enough on education.  It is an investment with a return.  I don't believe we should be subsidizing various forms of private education.

Then again, I don't like privatizing most governmental functions.  The private sector seems too adept at manipulating government.  For decades we have decreased the federal workforce (versus total population) in the effort to "shrink" the government.  All we have accomplished through privatization is a massive increase in cost. 

Exactly! The problem with higher education is the cost, and yet all the politicians and media talk about is student loans. The problem with healthcare is the cost, and yet all the politicians and media talk about is insurance.

Surely the reason that no one talks about the real problem is intentional. Not everyone is that stupid.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

35 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Could you elaborate this statement?  

 

America has given a huge amount of money back to the communities, it just is eaten up in the implementation of the programs the government has fostered.  It’s been this way for centuries starting with the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the 1824.  People make a lot of money implementing government programs.  It should stop, I agree.

Are you sure the government has given massive amounts back to communities?  Infrastructure and poverty say otherwise.  And, please do not look at any amount spent on prisons and policing.  Those are cost which could be mitigated by many real social programs.  Using COVID relief dollars to build a prison is genuinely sad and, profoundly ignorant.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 minute ago, Grumps said:

Exactly! The problem with higher education is the cost, and yet all the politicians and media talk about is student loans. The problem with healthcare is the cost, and yet all the politicians and media talk about is insurance.

Surely the reason that no one talks about the real problem is intentional. Not everyone is that stupid.

Well, insurance is roughly 25% of the cost.  It is the part that is the most easily contained.

I think with the student loans, they are more representative of the cost.  I think the goal is to help some very needy people now and, work toward no cost or, highly subsidized higher education in the future.  I think it would be a great investment.  I think the payback is fewer on welfare, fewer in prison, more taxpayers.

[I_M4_AU 7,759]

19 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Are you sure the government has given massive amounts back to communities?  Infrastructure and poverty say otherwise.  And, please do not look at any amount spent on prisons and policing.  Those are cost which could be mitigated by many real social programs.  Using COVID relief dollars to build a prison is genuinely sad and, profoundly ignorant.

Yes, we spend a massive amount.

The United States has dramatically increased federal spending fighting poverty over the last 55 years.  Total welfare costs have risen from $803 per person in poverty in 1965 to $22,735 per person in 2020.  That totals $90,939 for a family of four even though the Poverty Threshold for such a family is $26,496.  Total federal welfare costs include the expenditures of 13 large government programs (See the Safety Net Page) plus the Medicaid Program which supplies health care to low-income Americans.  The figures have been adjusted for the costs of inflation and stated in 2020 dollars [i]. 

 

 

 

Even without including health care costs (Medicaid) we spent $803 per person in poverty in 1965 which steadily increased to where in 2020 we spent $10,425 per person.  That totals $41,700 for a family of four.

Most of the welfare programs were created over the past 55 years and all of them expanded their scope and reach over this timeframe.  Yet despite the increase in spending, the poverty level has remained fairly constant at between 11% – 15% of the population.  We have spent more and more money but have not lessened the number of people in poverty [ii].  Why?  The reason is because our system is poorly designed as described below.  

Over the past 55 years we have spent trillions of dollars on welfare benefits and in the process made many lives more comfortable and easier.   But the controversial question is whether those benefits have helped people establish their economic independence or instead lead to dependency and sapped personal initiative and growth.   
Many argue that the middle class has shrunk over the last 50 years, that jobs for those with low education are limited and that the poor have few opportunities for advancement.  Without welfare, it is argued, the poor would have little to fall back on and would lead lives of desperation.  But others argue that many in poverty are not destitute at all and cite statistics such as 96% of poor households own a TV, 83% have air conditioning, 93% are satisfied with their housing and 74% describe the household as “food secure” (See more information on the Poverty Level Page).   Many argue that paying benefits to these households encourages dependency and that it is not fair to those who work hard to achieve an equivalent standard of living.  But no matter your view on what our welfare payments have or have not achieved, one fact remains.  That fact is our uncoordinated programs are not effective at lowering the number of people in poverty and we have to take that as an overall failure.  We can all agree that economic health and independence are the goals of welfare and as it relates to this goal we have failed.  Therefore, it is time to address the overall system.

https://federalsafetynet.com/poverty-and-spending-over-the-years/

This article agrees that we have done a poor job of getting people out of poverty.  We need to have a fresh look at our spending in this area.

 

[homersapien 11,346]

5 hours ago, autigeremt said:

"It is consumption that needs to be managed....."

 

Code for more chains on individual freedom. 

Whaaaaat?! 

Everyone is free to consume beyond their means - or not.   But you won't become wealthy by doing so.

Do you really think I meant management in any other sense than self-managment (a.k.a. personal discipline).

You seem to be suffering from partisan paranoia.

[homersapien 11,346]

4 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Sharing as a decision not forced. 

There you go again. 

[homersapien 11,346]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Democracy is, IMHO, already threatened by the wealthiest Americans.  They are very effectively buying the government, lobbyist, PACs, campaign finance, outright corruption.   How much legislation is actually written by lobbies?   I just don't believe we should have a class with so much power.  I don't mind them making money (or keeping it) the old-fashion way but, I object to the grotesque extent to which they have tipped the scales, consolidated economic activity, restrict innovation, do not pay their fair share.

As for capitalism, I believe relative equality is essential.  I believe Marx was right about his definition of the weakness of capitalism (essentially that the capitalist goal is to thwart competition and, create monopoly).  Relative equality ensures that we have both an abundance of producers and consumers.  It creates balance, helps maintain predictable equilibrium.  It keeps us from experiencing radical boom/bust cycles.

Relative equality does a lot to keep society peaceful, prosperous.  I think we need to consider the cost of social programs while also considering the cost of not doing anything.  Is it cheaper to feed, educate, house those in need or, to police, adjudicate, incarcerate, to keep spending on generations because we won't break the cycle of poverty.

 

 

You're going to get a lot of reaction from the words "relative equality".

I understand what you are getting at though - democracy thrives when there is a very large middle class where the opportunity to participate in it is equally provided to all people.

(Oh, shucks, now I have to find a more euphemistic way to say "equally provided".  )

[autigeremt 6,560]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

There you go again. 

Damn right.