Equities and terrorists

[John Galt]

Look folks, the world is screwed up and always has been. The entire history of mankind (an oxymoron)
has been wars, conflict and atrocities. Your government is no better. "Inept" is too kind
and it won't get better no matter who wins in
November. Suck it up and take care of yourselves.

John Galt

 

[trumpeting_angel]

The government doesn't actually want people to drive safely, as this would eliminate a major source of income for the states (traffic tickets). Same with the war on drugs. Confiscation of "drug dealer" property is a major revenue source. Some police departments don't even have an equipment budget from the city. They are expected to outfit their departments with the profits generated by selling confiscated property.

Michael, I'm not sure the economics of the drug war are that simple. While I am not of a mind to defend our government's actions in either war, I do want to point out that my best guess is that the profits generated by selling confiscated property cannot begin to cover the costs of investigating, arresting, detaining, trying, and especially incarcerating all of the people we put behind bars in the "drug war." It is a huge expense, overcrowding our prisons so that there's less room for violent offenders, and frequent new taxes to build more prison cells.

However, I don't want to go on record as defending "our" government's actions in either the drug war or this debacle in Iraq. The war on terrorism is, as TH points out, making more and more of those folks madder and madder at us.

Anne

 

[charlie]

I have not read so much pessimistic and cynical
BS on this forum since I started lurking last year.

What do you guys want to do ........ just roll over?
The way I see it is that we have to take it to the
enemy and destroy them. Better on their land
than ours.

Charlie

 

[sgeeeee]

. . . The way I see it is that we have to take it to the
enemy and destroy them.  Better on their land
than ours.  

By all means, let us fight the enemy -- on their land or wherever we have to. But there is no indication that Iraq is or ever was the enemy.

 

[johnblake]

I noticed that bush began using the optimist vs. the pessimist tactic immediately following the $500M-$1B Reagan funeral. (Hey, wasn't he the one that was for smaller government?)

Of course we shouldn't just roll over. But the current strategy is costing a fortune, eroding civil liberties, and breeding baby terrorists faster than their parents are being killed. What can we do better? For starters, how about trying to understand the root causes and nature of the problem? "They hate us because we are free" is ridiculous. New Zealand is free, are they also a valued target? Do they need to attack Iraq?

What's really the cause? There are surely many, but support for Israel and meddling in the affairs of Arab countries to suit US oil needs is certainly at the top. More of the same (overthrow Saddam) will just make the problem worse.

What can we do (besides bomb them?) For starters, reduce our dependency on oil. In the short term via by reducing consumption, and over the longer term by developing alternative renewable energy technologies. I'm in the camp that believes that we can reduce consumption considerably without having a significant affect on our 'standard of living'.

This endless war sounds more and more like 1984 every day.

 

[John Galt]

'1984' is your future JohnBlake. Deal with it.

John Galt

 

[eytonxav]

I have always leaned toward Barry Goldwater's philosophy, but I must say its very disturbing to me to see our country, under Bush's team, go from being one of the most admired in the world, to most despised. I'm with JohnBlake, deal with the root cause and definitely a viable sustainable energy policy and alternative fuel is long overdue.

As to terrorist attacks, don't see it happening until after the election, as we are not Spain. A pre-election attack in USA will play into Bush's hands.

Doug

 

[Michael]

...selling confiscated property cannot begin to cover the costs...

Of course not, but the political process does not lead to a lot of rational decisions. Talk to police officers, and they will tell you that the majority of their time is spent on traffic and drugs. These are the two areas that bring in the most revenue to the government. The politicians do not want to lose the votes of drug warriors by suggesting that drug warriors be laid off prior to their being eligible for pensions. They get more votes by continuously expanding the bureaucracy, and finding creative ways to support it. Cost effectiveness is not the point. The point is to buy more votes by giving more and more people secure government jobs.

From the stand point of getting votes, more expenditures is a good thing. Anything that threatens government revenue is a bad thing. However well intentioned something may start out, it tends to turn into a self sustaining bureaucracy once the politicians get involved. The politicians will never adopt a simple, inexpensive, and effective strategy because that approach does not maximize the number of votes. More government employees means more people who depend upon the politicians for their jobs, and will campaign to keep them in office.

 

[John Galt]

I always thought
most policemen spent their time riding around, sitting
on their asses and eating donuts. Small town cops?
Has to be one of the easiest jobs invented.

John Galt

 

[charlie]

I agree that we need to reduce our dependency on
foriegn oil. Probably everyone agrees with thiis.
The trouble is that we disagree on tactics which
paralizes us. Gentlemen, remember that we must
"hang together or we will surely hang separately."

Charlie

 

[unclemick]

Really John?

Next time you talk to one - ask 'em about domestic violence calls - even small towns have 'fun'? And pre-nups don't seem to help much. heh. heh.

heh. heh - in the small town where I grew up had a fourplex across the street - a lot of entertainment in summer with doors/windows open - Growcho and Hanson parked their squad car around the corner and waited for the inevitable. Never asked about doughnuts though.

 

[wabmester]

As to terrorist attacks, don't see it happening until after the election, as we are not Spain.  A pre-election attack in USA will play into Bush's hands.

I believe they want Bush to win. Bush has done more to galvanize terrorists, boost their recruiting efforts, and bring Arab sympathy to their cause than any of their own actions possibly could have.

My guess would be that they plan to attack during the first days of the new Kerry administration, during a fairly vulnerable and chaotic transition period.

 

[Jarhead*]

This discussion reminds me of a friend of mine when asked the reason for buying a house that was, on all outward signs too expensive for him, why he did it.

"We have a system in our family. I take care of all the big problems, (Vietnam, Inflation, stag-flation, etc. etc. My wife takes care of all the small problems, (where we live, the amount of money we spend, where we vacation, etc. etc.)"

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I have not read so much pessimistic and cynical
BS on this forum since I started lurking last year.

What do you guys want to do ........ just roll over?
The way I see it is that we have to take it to the
enemy and destroy them. Better on their land
than ours.

Charlie

Charlie - you're absolutely right, we have to take it to them. Afghanistan made all the sense in the world.

Iraq...another matter, but the core politics arent particularly evident. Unfortunately a lot of really smart people havent done their reading.

Iraq has historically - for centuries - been a hard place to govern. There are roughly two dozen different "constituencies" that frequently will try to kill each other on sight. Vast differences in religions, economics, ways of life, etc. Severe potential enemies all around from the opportunistic turks to the iranian mullahs to the israelis.

We probably LIKED saddam in his role of iron fisted dictator keeping all these different factions in line and his religion-neutral country as a breakwater in the oil rich region. We liked it because his failure would probably have led to a fractured Iraq, many large portions of which would have been grabbed up by the turks or the iranians. We dont need mass civil war and land grabs in the middle of our oil producing region.

How about a joined iran/iraq run by irans mullahs, sitting on the border of israel and saudi arabia? Yum.

Bearing in mind that we gave Saddam the keys to the city of detroit 20 years ago for his charitable work with a local church...for whatever reason we came to be at odds with him over kuwait. Scuttlebutt says the cia gave him the go-ahead to invade, but then when world reaction turned unfavorable and he wouldnt back out, we had to invade. Would make sense as to why we didnt "finish the job" back in the first gulf war. We wanted him to remain in power as the breakwater in the region.

We subsequently, over a ten year period, weakened him, his military and his country to the point where they were about to disintegrate. My opinion on his "WMD" fake-out? He was so afraid of invasion by a neighbor(s) that he made the bluff to keep them at bay while expecting the UN would keep us from invading. I think it was probably fear his regime would collapse and something unpleasant would fill the void, so we decided to step in and be the void filler ourselves.

But that doesnt have a thing to do with terrorism. And its going to cost us bazillions of dollars and a major distraction of our forces and resources away from fighting the "good fight".

Had we focused our military on continuing to pursue the situation in afghanistan, concentrating our intelligence efforts, and following the money trails and seizing the terrorists assets...we'd be far better off today.

But thats just my opinion...

 

[John Galt]

Hello Chuck-Lyn, re. "cynical", I am guilty. Cynical to a fault. But not really pessimistic, except about others,
especially government and other "authority figures".
I am completely an optimist regarding what I can do
for myself. Anyway, I've opted out of the struggle.
You may carry on if you wish. And one more thing.......
I believe the founding of this country was one of the greatest achievements in history. However, the
foundation which was laid by men of honor and courage
and vision has been corrupted and polluted beyond
repair IMHO. End of rant.

John Galt

 

[BigMoneyJim]

Okay, now I'm scared...I'm sharing an opinion with John Galt.

TH's remarks hit very close to home.

I am getting more and more cynical. U.S. government and big business (which are more and more the same lately) are out to control how and when we spend our money and how we live our lives. I have yet to hear a plausible and reasonable justification for invading Iraq, so I'm left to believe it's about money/oil/power. Meanwhile we've taken away order in the area and the next many years are likely to be very bloody for them no matter what we do now. Afghanistan has that same problem, but that invasion and mess were a necessary response to the 9/11 attacks.

Well, there I go with a rare political opinion. Back on topic, it does make me worry about our equity market. Actually several things make me worry. Before and after 9/11 I was 100% in stock funds and only changed a few months ago, and that was only to have an emergency cash cushion and debt payoff fund in case I got caught up in my company's staff reduction. After the work scare I went 80% stocks, 20% bonds and occasionally itch to go 60/40 but don't allow myself because it's a drastic change and I'm pretty sure the motivation is fear.

 

[unclemick]

I shall continue to invest based on my AGE and take what the market gives me. I did that back when 'when stocks are dead' and Saddam and Osama were 'our guys'.

One can adjust ones portfolio based on concern's about the future -but I won't be the one to recommend it.

BTY - the best burger in the area is made by 'retired marines' - next to the take out counter there is a little sign:

"Be a Marine. Travel to exotic places, meet interesting people---And KILL Them."

Still like the burgers though.

 

[charlie]

The thing that saddens and frustrates me the most
is that neither the "right" nor the "left" seem interested
in solving problems. Both sides posture and pander
for their constituencies and let solvable problems fester.

As our friend Pogo once said "we have met the enemy
and he is us" Until we set aside partisan differences
and compromise for the common good we will continue
on the slippery slope toward the ash heap of history.

Nevertheless, I remain hopeful that we will come to
our senses at some point. As a nation, when the people understand the crisis, we respond. It has
always been so thus far.

Cheers,

Charlie

 

[Cut-Throat]

The thing that saddens and frustrates me the most
is that neither the "right" nor the "left" seem interested
in solving problems.  Both sides posture and pander
for their constituencies and let solvable problems fester.

The main focus of politicians is to stay in power. They do this today by lowering taxes, not cutting services and borrowing money to do it. Bush Sr. called it voodoo ecomomics and was beaten in the primary by Reagan.

To this day, people thought Reagan had a good economic program and so that is the path  Bush Jr. is currently following.

Not to hard to understand, If someone came along with some tough solutions to the country's problems they'd probably get less votes than Ralph Nader. This is political science 101.

Most people cannot balance their own budgets today much less understand someone that could balance the country's and then actually vote for him/her

 

[guest]

You ER people tell everyone to ignore short term market moves. But throw hissy fits over 9/11 and Iraq. More people get killed every month in the USA from car crashes, not to even mention from firearms. On a national scale, both "events" are tiny blips. As for oil, the USA wasn't getting any oil from Iraq when Saddam was in charge, so anything and I mean anything that comes to us from there now is a bonus. But frankly, we receive oil from so many sources around the world that we are dependent on no one country for oil. When the price goes up, more countries begin to produce it. It's supply and demand.
This nation has not had to collectively sacrifice since WWII. And our homeland sacrificies even then were NOTHING compared to other countries suffering. It's hard for most people to view world events from a national perspective. And the press hypes it so you'll think it's important to your life so you'll watch their show more often so they can charge more for advertising.

 

[John Galt]

Hello "guest". Pretty good post. I agree about the
media hyping everything from the mundane to the
ridiculous (making mountains out of molehills).
I am not sure you are right about firearms though.
It is my impressions that there are relatively few
firearms deaths, compared to other violent ways of
dying. I'll bet if you take the gangbangers out of the total
you would be surprised at how small the total really is.
Once again, mostly just left wing media hype.

John Galt

 

[johnblake]

There's a big difference between being cynical and being critical. JG's 1984 comment is clearly cynical. But just because someone disagrees with the government's policies does not mean they're cynical. Speaking out against the government is much more 'American' than buying into the propaganda machine and going along with whatever they do.

re: 'foreign oil'
We need to reduce our dependency on oil period. In a free market economy, pumping a little more oil on North American soil will make little difference -- the Middle East will still be sitting on top of a gold mine. The US already produces a significant percentage of the oil we consume (about half). Around 1984 the US produced 2/3 of our needs. Check out the chart 'US Crude Oil Imports by Source'. Note the relatively small amount that comes from the Persian Gulf region.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

But as far as reserves go, the situation is very different. The US has approximately 23B barrels (rank 11th). Iraq alone has 115B barrels! Saudi Arabia (4th) has 264B barrels in reserve. Even if we miraculously increased reserves by a factor of 10, the middle east would have a tremendous influence over international oil markets.

This is another example where the shallow debate never reaches the crux of the matter.

 

[charlie]

What we need is a "shoot the moon" project
a la JFK to develop a hydrogen based energy
economy.

I would vote for that and I bet most would.

Cheers,

Charlie

 

[BigMoneyJim]

What we need is a "shoot the moon" project
a la JFK to develop a hydrogen based energy
economy.

I would vote for that and I bet most would.

Cheers,

Charlie

I keep hearing that hydrogen is more of an energy storage medium in practice than an energy source. The argument goes that there aren't vast deposits of hydrogen waiting to be tapped, but that it has to be electrolysized out of water or harvested from deep sea frozen hydrogen formations of some sort. And the energy used for electrolysis or deep sea excavating would be from today's energy sources.

On the other hand I guess at least the pollution and other associated problems could be localized to the hydrogen processing plants and clean fuel cells could be distributed for common use.

But wouldn't we still be burning lots of oil in the hydrogen 'production' (or maybe reduction) process?

Admittedly I haven't read deeply into it, so I may be misunderstanding something.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

You have it right Jim.

There are no magic spells to fix this except to reduce usage drastically and squeeze every iota out of each and every alternative energy source.

There are no large "wells" of hydrogen, and producing it is very costly. Some methods are improving output and reducing costs but even with breakthroughs and "shoot the moons" we're probably decades away from cracking it, building the distribution systems, and replacing fleets of vehicles. I see a lot of good material from comedians though ending with the cry "Oh...the humanity!".

Solar is nice, but doesnt work well in the cooler climes and again is very expensive.

Wind is good, but there isnt enough of it. Canada does a good job with Hydro, but again, many areas simply cant make use of it at all. Nukes are nice, but to take on even a large percentage of our current coal and oil energy needs would produce an awful lot of other problems we'd have to deal with.

Anyone else see the news articles about reactors in Connecticut and (vermont or new hampshire?) losing a bunch of spent fuel rods? How the hell do you lose spent fuel rods?!?

Even with good hydrogen, fuel cells, biodiesel, etc, etc...We've got vehicles that will take 20 years to get them off the road. Planes can only work with certain fuel types that create enough energy vs weight vs volume.

A lot of problems to solve to get out from under the oil suppliers thumb...