They are not idiots in DC, they know exactly what they are doing. Well at least some of them. What boggles are the people like Harkm who are dying to put their money into Boone's pocket just because he is making noise. As if he is the only one who has been submitting proposals to Congress.
his ads are being played only on GE-i mean cnbc. I have yet to see his ads on bloomberg which is what i mostly watch.The time i turned on cnbc i saw his ad. wonder if ge is giving him a break on ad costs you know since ge will be making a killing off the wind turbines?
Unbelievable. Go back and read my posts please quote where I said I was dying to put money in Boone's pocket. You obviously don't believe things need to change and change fast. People like you are always so cynical and paranoid that you can't get things done. I guess it will take a full blown crisis to convince you.
I usually don't get involved in political arguments on message boards because it ends in a pissing contest, but I heard the Pickens ad as well and I was instantly skeptical. I have seen a couple of posts by people that seem to be conservative but they are in favor of a government subsidy of Pickens ' plan. Artificial manipulation of the market is wrong, even if the idea is something you think is the right thing to do. On the other side you have the OP, a condescending elitist that uses a barrage of supposed "facts" and insults to try and bully the opposition into submission. Things like simply accusing you of having "logic fallacies" or inferring you haven't graduated from high school, without any real substance to back it up. This is the modus operandi of the left, and doesn't add a single BTU of energy or solve any of these problems. As to Pickens' plan, I have no problem at all with alternative sources of energy, but not until they can compete with the best source of energy...fossil fuels. If wind can compete, then private investors will line up for miles to put money in it. I would invest in hamster farms if we could get them to run in a wheel and produce cheaper energy than a barrel of oil. This notion that only the almighty government can solve our need for energy is absurd. Look at what subsidies for corn ethanol have done...record high corn prices and starvation in the third world. All for a fuel that is nowhere near as good as oil. To say we can't drill our way out of this problem is simply rhetoric that can not be proved or disproved until its tried. I say let the companies that make a living from drilling decide if its worth it. If it is, then thanks to the pursuit of profit they will get the oil...if its not, then they will quit when it costs them more than its worth. Why should anyone that doesn't have the expertise to determine its feasibility decide this? And the argument about "ugly drilling" is simply outdated. That was drilling 40 years ago...the technology is cleaner and safer than ever before. The OP mentioned a "fact" that gas prices would only drop 2 cents if we drilled in ANWR. How does he (or the DOE that he claims is the source...although I have only heard Chuck Shumer say it) know this? A simple understanding of basic economics would argue against it. Just the knowledge of our intentions to get our own oil would immediately cause prices to fall. OPEC knows that there is a price level at which it is not profitable for us to drill new wells and would increase production to get prices to these levels so that they can continue to make money from us. It would not simply be the new supply available from ANWR that would cause prices to come down. The "evil" speculators know this and would adjust their bids and offers accordingly. You would think this would be second nature to a community full of traders. The free market is why we have such a high standard of living, and it is the free market that will most efficiently find the best solutions, both long and short term. If there truly is only a small amount of oil left in the world, then the resulting high price will drive private enterprise to develop a new source of energy. But the answer is not to curtail our use of energy and go backwards. I am not talking about conservation, that is fine and dandy, but we can not stop the engine of progress that requires an ever increasing amount of energy. The old adage "necessity is the mother of invention" is old and an adage because its true. New sources of energy will be used only when they are cheaper than the current source. This applies to hybrid cars, solar panels, ethanol, windmills, or whatever you can think of. Make it work for less than what we do now and the world will use it, plain and simple. We need to let entrepreneurs do what they do best. We need to let them both succeed AND fail. Supporting failure only extends the time it takes to find a real solution. That is why the alternative energy du jour should not be pushed by politicians that do not understand the technology or the economics behind it. I didn't mean to be this long winded, but I talk to people every day that don't seem to understand the real problem or the solution. They rely on bumper sticker slogans that they hear on the nightly news rather than relying on their critical thinking skills. Liberty, not government, is the solution to the human condition. Its worked everywhere its been tried.
Excellent Commentary, WarEagle WarEagle Wrote: I usually don't get involved in political arguments on message boards because it ends in a pissing contest, but I heard the Pickens ad as well and I was instantly skeptical. I have seen a couple of posts by people that seem to be conservative but they are in favor of a government subsidy of Pickens ' plan. Artificial manipulation of the market is wrong, even if the idea is something you think is the right thing to do. On the other side you have the OP, a condescending elitist that uses a barrage of supposed "facts" and insults to try and bully the opposition into submission. Things like simply accusing you of having "logic fallacies" or inferring you haven't graduated from high school, without any real substance to back it up. This is the modus operandi of the left, and doesn't add a single BTU of energy or solve any of these problems. As to Pickens' plan, I have no problem at all with alternative sources of energy, but not until they can compete with the best source of energy...fossil fuels. If wind can compete, then private investors will line up for miles to put money in it. I would invest in hamster farms if we could get them to run in a wheel and produce cheaper energy than a barrel of oil. This notion that only the almighty government can solve our need for energy is absurd. Look at what subsidies for corn ethanol have done...record high corn prices and starvation in the third world. All for a fuel that is nowhere near as good as oil. To say we can't drill our way out of this problem is simply rhetoric that can not be proved or disproved until its tried. I say let the companies that make a living from drilling decide if its worth it. If it is, then thanks to the pursuit of profit they will get the oil...if its not, then they will quit when it costs them more than its worth. Why should anyone that doesn't have the expertise to determine its feasibility decide this? And the argument about "ugly drilling" is simply outdated. That was drilling 40 years ago...the technology is cleaner and safer than ever before. The OP mentioned a "fact" that gas prices would only drop 2 cents if we drilled in ANWR. How does he (or the DOE that he claims is the source...although I have only heard Chuck Shumer say it) know this? A simple understanding of basic economics would argue against it. Just the knowledge of our intentions to get our own oil would immediately cause prices to fall. OPEC knows that there is a price level at which it is not profitable for us to drill new wells and would increase production to get prices to these levels so that they can continue to make money from us. It would not simply be the new supply available from ANWR that would cause prices to come down. The "evil" speculators know this and would adjust their bids and offers accordingly. You would think this would be second nature to a community full of traders. The free market is why we have such a high standard of living, and it is the free market that will most efficiently find the best solutions, both long and short term. If there truly is only a small amount of oil left in the world, then the resulting high price will drive private enterprise to develop a new source of energy. But the answer is not to curtail our use of energy and go backwards. I am not talking about conservation, that is fine and dandy, but we can not stop the engine of progress that requires an ever increasing amount of energy. The old adage "necessity is the mother of invention" is old and an adage because its true. New sources of energy will be used only when they are cheaper than the current source. This applies to hybrid cars, solar panels, ethanol, windmills, or whatever you can think of. Make it work for less than what we do now and the world will use it, plain and simple. We need to let entrepreneurs do what they do best. We need to let them both succeed AND fail. Supporting failure only extends the time it takes to find a real solution. That is why the alternative energy du jour should not be pushed by politicians that do not understand the technology or the economics behind it. I didn't mean to be this long winded, but I talk to people every day that don't seem to understand the real problem or the solution. They rely on bumper sticker slogans that they hear on the nightly news rather than relying on their critical thinking skills. Liberty, not government, is the solution to the human condition. Its worked everywhere its been tried. .................................................................................. Excellent Post Another issue would be to remove taxation from fossil fuels altogether and get it from businesses that are doing something with it..... Give incentives to drill....do anything to make the current and propective sources cheaper .... In other words you have...... hydro coal oil nat gas nuclear wind ethanol thermal biodiesel batteries The problem is an inevitable expense of $700 billion per year and going up every time oil goes up..... In other words what would the energy picture look like if you took out all the tax stops....and allow let's say 7 years time.... What would the import picture be ? Let's assume new technology takes care of CO2...... ............................................................................ And you are exactly right , when the price is right others kick in.... ......................................................................... What could the energy picture look like if there was a national sales tax only of 15%.....in either words exhaust the current fossil fuel possibilities given different tax scenarios for the economy...... At the minimum one has to look at the time line, the state of the economy, and what the best mix is.... You hear, read this or that.....but where is a company that has produced one barrel of oil from algae....and tested it in engines... you know ....the list goes on and on.... This is not going to happen by magic....and there is a way to optimize the solutions....without all the smoke and mirrors..... ADM and ethanol is a tax subsidy horror story....etc...etc.... So how do you see it ? In terms of the newer clean fuels, Denmark , a very small socialistic type country is the largest most experienced user of wind, about 20%....but when GE a credible company....and when a successful American is spending billions already.....what other groups would be better to give it a go ? Somebody somewhere has to form the proper objectives and get a move on.... From what you know....what would you suggest as a reasonable approach....or do you think that things are just fine the way they are ? You hear a lot about batteries....but how many battery vehicles can happen in 7 to 10 years etc.... Now, where the real fun and games start is when the ME can produce for far less than US Oil...thus creating inefficiencies at these levels.....but is this not why it is so important to have access to cheap Iraq/Iran Oil.....cheap oil is on their real estate not US realestate....and straight up one to one price competition is not possible without tariffs .....and other protectionist measures....you know the story well....The ME has the lowest cost of production crowbar, which they will use..... Thus by default, the US has to protect its producers versus ME oil. Thus the US has to have a general protectionist policy in place to protect current and future production....or how would this not be the case.... If SA, Iraq, Iran have lifting costs of less than $5....and the closest to it in the US is $22 not considering dollar valuation changes...then this is a standby $22 vs $5 when the time comes.... If there was not such a delay on Iraq production, maybe this conversation would not even be happening.... But the point is...the US along with a lot of other countries just do not have effective energy policies.....and the US is going to tranfer out over $10 trillion or more over the next 10 years without a fix.....
===================== Good points, War Eagle. And since T Boone Pickens has disclosed his positions for some time; all the better. People are already in the private sector , paying up; grass fed beef, uses more solar than oil/corn crop to feed beef.And when its homegrown that way its cheaper to grow [less $$ cost ]for the rancher anyway......... And reguardless if grass fed beef is cheaper or not[SOLAR ENERGY AGAIN]; it's in many cases, more healthy.See for yourself; and its' tasty for sure .Dont know if Boone Pickens is into grass fed beef or not, on his TX ranch ?????. Also I like his idea of putting wind farms on his TX ranch; someones else did that wnmd farm thing offshore/Cape Cod. FOX news this mourning, broke the news story.
Perhaps you should clarify something for all of us. The US currently gives tax credits for alternative energy investments.... all of them. So are you against the tax credits? Or do you want some type of means testing for tax credits, excluding those of a certain net worth. OldTrader
What you evidently don't know is that Hydroblunt wouldn't know a "fact" if it hit him in the ass. He has a history of making various assertions, always based on a "study", which he can never link. BullAlert evidently has thrown in with him. My guess is they are birds of a feather. OldTrader
That ought to goddamn illegal right? I mean why should a business that just sold $2Billion in wind turbines give a concession on advertising? LOL. OldTrader
Just thought I'd point out that when you talk about "subsidy", what you're talking about is the tax credit that government currently gives for wind production, amounting to 2 cents/kwh. This tax credit is not unique to wind production. All forms of alternative energy production get a tax credit to my knowledge. There's a reason for this. Government want to encourage alternative forms of energy, particularly those like solar or wind where they are renewable. I don't intend to get off on a philosophical tangent. But certainly we are aware that government creates certain advantages into the tax code for things that they think may be beneficial to the society at large. I don't agree with all of these of course, nor do you I suspect. Currently for instance we pay unemployed workers federal unemployment insurance for a period. We give tax credit under certain conditions for child care. We give an interest write off on mortgage interest. You can get depreciation allowance on investment property. Depletion allowance on an oil well. I can go on. So when it comes to a tax credit for alternative energy, this seems to be yet another thing that society, via their government, has decided has enough merit to be encouraged. And stop and thing about it. We hear alot about peak oil. So it is just a question of time when we better have some type of alternative. Evidently, up to now, there has been no widespread desire, to build alternative energy production, even with oil at $140 per barrel. There are alot of reasons why society, via the government, might wish to encourage something like solar, or wind. They're renewable. There are many benefits that fossil fuel does not have. Not to mention environmental benefits or the fact that we currently send $700 Billion overseas for imported oil every year...and growing. In the case of wind power, there are large upfront expenses. In the case of Pickens, he has spent approximately $2Billion on wind turbines. By the time he is done with his project, he will have spent an estimated $12 Billion. Perhaps you are unaware that right now Congress has failed to renew the tax credit for wind power. But the transmission lines for Pickens wind power is a part of that $12Billion. In order to turn wind into a viable method there is alot of infrastructure that needs to be put into place....transmission lines for example. I guess it depends on what type of government you wish to have. Currently, our government discourages drilling. We discourage building refineries. We discourage nuclear facilities. And don't get me started on all the ways government makes any of these nearly impossible. And unfortunately, I see no short term plan around to get rid of government interference with business.....which would be a good start if you really want someone to compete with a start up alternative energy plan. I guess you realize just putting up transmission lines down the midwest corridor is going to require alot of governmental help in terms of property rights, etc....just like the highway system did. I find it interesting that Pickens is really the first plan I've seen come forward. And the first objection that has been thrown up is that people don't want to "subsidize" the plan. Presumably meaning they don't think Pickens should get a tax credit for his investment. I wonder how much thought people gave that objection? OldTrader