This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The 'Green' Premium: 620%

Tyler Durden's picture




 

As the squeeze-fest from Friday's oil-spike wears off a little, it is perhaps worth noting just how astronomically insane the world gets when the terrible triumvirate of 'green' energy needs, defense spending, and government largesse come together. Why should we worry about 5c or 10c on a gallon of fuel down the local gas station when the US Navy (in all her glory) is willing to pay a staggering $26-a-gallon for 'green' synthetic biofuel (made we assume from the very same unicorn tears and leprechaun nipples that funded the ESM). As Reuters reports, the 'Great Green Fleet' will be the first carrier strike group powered largely by alternative fuels; as the Pentagon hopes it can prove the Navy looks just as impressive burning fuel squeezed from seeds, algae, and chicken fat (we did not make this up). The story gets better as it appears back in 2009, the Navy paid Solazyme (whose strategic advisors included TJ Gaulthier who served on Obama's White House Transition team) $8.5mm for 20,055 gallons on algae-based biofuel - a snip at just $424-a-gallon. While this is of course stirring all kinds of Republican rebuttal, Navy secretary Ray Mabus believes it vital to diversify as the Navy has been at the forefront of energy innovation for over 100 years (from sail, to coal, to oil, and then to nuclear from the 1850s to 1950s). Indeed, "Of course it costs more," he told the climate conference. "It's a new technology. If we didn't pay a little bit more for new technologies, we'd still be using typewriters instead of computers." Easy when it's other people's money eh?

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:10 | 2581400 monad
monad's picture

It makes sense if you think Waterworld was a forecast.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:20 | 2581434 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

This is one of the many reasons we should legalize hemp.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:23 | 2581448 theXman
theXman's picture

Mr Secretary Mabus,

I have news for you -- you just paid 10 times the price for an old typewriter. Bio-feul is nothing new, just a more expensive "technology" to produce an old product.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:30 | 2581467 idea_hamster
idea_hamster's picture

unicorn tears and leprechaun nipples

In fact, it's Kermit spunk.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:50 | 2581527 MillionDollarBonus_
MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

 

If we are going to get serious about climate change, we need to do better than this. ONE FLEET of ships? Are these the ONLY people willing to make the commitment to building a better world for our children? We need to replace ALL fossil fuels with biofuels, wind farms and solar. And I know conspiratorialistic libertarians won't like this, but NUCLEAR is another one of the options we simply have to develop. In the 21st century, there is simply NO NEED to burn ANY fossil fuels. Join the CARBON FREE REVOLUTION - Stop using carbon based fuels in all parts of your life. Make a difference TODAY and commit to making America CARBON FREE by 2013!

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:56 | 2581551 Piranhanoia
Piranhanoia's picture

MDB thinks diesel is a new green goddess.  Guess you aren't about sarc after all.

MDB just might be a commentatator for the swells.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:03 | 2581569 ThaBigPerm
ThaBigPerm's picture

Heh.  Biofuels = "carbon-free"?  Heh.  Somebody sucks at chemistry.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 00:13 | 2582702 Praetor
Praetor's picture

What MDB is not telling you, after the Wall St scum suck you completely dry, all you have left is your bones, which they will process into a new technological calcium phosphate version of biodiesel.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:32 | 2581643 Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture

 

 

It has been said that an algae farm the size of Maryland would produce enough BioFuel to satisfy the entire fuel requirements of the United States. Not sure that I believe that 100% and not sure what the EROEI is …….

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:46 | 2581696 marathonman
marathonman's picture

Maryland and DC have a healthy and growing stock of pond scum on hand.  Harvest that and you've got something.  Seems pretty renewable as well.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:35 | 2581651 strangeglove
strangeglove's picture

Price be damned! Full speed ahead!

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:57 | 2581922 WhiteNight123129
WhiteNight123129's picture

Baffle them with bullshit and laughter....  thanks MDB for the daily dose of carefully crafted comical absurdity.

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:46 | 2582013 RealFinney
RealFinney's picture

America can't afford not to spend the $70,560,000,000,000 to switch it's oil consumption wholly to Bio-Fuels. (4 billion barrles at $420 a gallon).

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:17 | 2582100 Bloodstock
Bloodstock's picture

We exhale carbon fool. How about you lead us and show the way by stopping breathing? Good luck with that.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 23:49 | 2582661 UnderDeGun
UnderDeGun's picture

TARD!

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:32 | 2581478 El Viejo
El Viejo's picture

FYI:  It's a strategic thing. You wouldn't want to find yourself in a situation where you only have one source for fuel (middle east) and in a war in the middle east, so the Navy has been experimenting. That's all. They do buy a little bio fuel from the east coast and blend it. True they pay a little more, but it keeps the small bio fuel company in business and the Navy has a secondary source for fuel and a chance to experiment on its effectiveness.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:37 | 2581493 mjk0259
mjk0259's picture

OMG! A rational comment on ZH! You're supposed to rant about how this proves the evils of socialism.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:46 | 2581512 El Viejo
El Viejo's picture

You know if ZH got rid of the Junk Button all the escapees from Tech Ticker would probably leave. Most don't even read the full comment before they hit the Junk button and the rest can't come up with legitimate comment.

http://www.innovationtoronto.com/2011/02/u-s-navy-green-military-investigates/

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:26 | 2581621 Troublehoff
Troublehoff's picture

That was not a rational comment.

In case you hadn't noticed, the US produces an enourmous amount of oil anyway. If it comes down to a situation where the Navy requires oil and imports aren't available (i.e. war), it will receive oil regardless of the import situation.

This is simply a case of pissing taxpayer money straight into the hands of a government crony/elitist for a scheme that would fail miserably in free market economics. Crony capitalism at its most blatant. I'm so sick of this shit.

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:45 | 2581688 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

It's stupid to pay too much, for sure, but you know, the Navy might be paying $19/gallon for "regular" diesel, too.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:03 | 2581756 Manthong
Manthong's picture

Ship topped off with Mazzola.. gay crew..

I can see how it makes sense.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:55 | 2582034 Tippoo Sultan
Tippoo Sultan's picture

...With the Village People performing their disco cover of Florence Henderson's, "Wessonality."

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m31ciriCs61qhd9yt.jpg

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 04:04 | 2582903 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

In case you hadn't noticed, the US produces an enourmous amount of oil anyway. If it comes down to a situation where the Navy requires oil and imports aren't available (i.e. war), it will receive oil regardless of the import situation.

_________________________

Indeed, indeed.

But it is also fair to remember that maintaining the US military in its oil consumption will come at the expense of US of A residents'consumption.

If imports can no longer feed the military machine, then it will come from domestic extraction.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:39 | 2581496 0z
0z's picture

So it would cost me less to work with a typewriter? IAnd all this time I thought I was using a computer because it was more efficient than a pen and paper ... Gotta go back to my economics textbooks.

The third Reich must have been making syncrude from coal to push science, and not because they thought Stalingrad was more important than the caucasus' oil fields. After all, these Tiger tanks only drank 14 gallons to the mile. Brilliant! Why did they lose the war then?

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 04:32 | 2582923 Redhotfill
Redhotfill's picture

2.75 gallons to the mile

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:39 | 2581500 American34
American34's picture

Are you serious? I am pretty sure that money could have been spent on lighter composite based armor and saved more money by improving gas mileage on those massive ships. Heck, they probably could have burned money like coal for power and spent less. Sorry, buddy but this is plain as day a BAD INVESTMENT! It is this kind of total waste that proves these "Government Servants" who supposedly serve the people have NO CLUE what the real world is like anymore. I am all for an awesome military but this is utterly retarded.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:43 | 2581515 theXman
theXman's picture

We already have a 2nd source of fuel, it is nuclear. As to ME oil, in fact, America imports more oil from Canada than from Saudi. We are not even Saudi's top customer. (Guess who is) If we really want to secure supply of oil, build the Keystone pipeline. If we really seriously about energy self-reliance, promote the use of natural gas.

BTW, oil and gas are the ultimate high-density bio-fuel. The so-called green energy can never match the economy of fossil fuel. That is a scientific fact.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:52 | 2581532 0z
0z's picture

 El Viejo:

Ahahahah!! Bin Laden bankrupted the US! A state army has nothing efficient about it. Why do you think mercenaries exist? Ahahah! By WWII, battlecruisers were obsolete. Nowadays, aircraft carriers are obsolete, yet the biggest State army is building more! A well placed EMP and the whole thing goes Kaput!

Systems disuptions is the new warfare. That and pushing massively inefficient armies into enless desperate wars with shadow forces hiding in the mountains who make their guns by hand.

US soldier costs millions. 14 yr old resistance fighter costs a few hundred. Do the math. BTW, did the US win the Vietnam war? Maybe they would have won with biofuels!! Estimates were around 50 000 bullets fired per ennemy killed; I didnt make this up. Go do your homework kid.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:00 | 2581563 El Viejo
El Viejo's picture

http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/templates/Signal_Article_Template.asp?articleid=2918&zoneid=345

These people are experimenting both in space and on planet earth. Why shouldn't we??

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:52 | 2581539 cossack55
cossack55's picture

So, then, I assume they are now using "green" propellants in the gun charges?  Ten times the price for half the range.  God forbid they might increase sailor pay or allowances.  I guess the food stamps cover the gap.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:20 | 2581610 Richardk888
Richardk888's picture

Would it not make more sense to drill here at home, or go to natural gas versus using things that are costly to produce or possilby have an negative advers affect on our food supply?

Personally, I think this is a waste of tax payers money...

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:16 | 2582089 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

When did I first hear the story about the government paying $500 for a hammer? Late 70s, early 80s?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 20:18 | 2582240 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Ah our old friend Mr. Crockett

I would like people to note the following ZH post

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:46 | 2577369CrockettAlmanac.com  

I reproduce the relevant part of it here:

----------

I will post the quotes from scientists who claim that they are lying about AGW and ignoring the data yet again. I don't know why you're having such a hard time reading these quotes. I've posted them several times  on this very page but apparently they are invisible to you.

Here are the quotes. Look very carefully:

 

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.
"
 

- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

 

The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”

- Prof. Chris Folland,Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research?

?-----------------------------------------

?The following is a edited version of my reply:

Ah, these discredited chestnuts you keep peddling out. Talk about making up stuff as you go:

The Folland quote cannot be verified, it does not exist outside of denier websites in fact trying to track it down gets one lost in a circle of references in AGW denier sites...Provide a real reputable reference for the quote... Problem is that you can't since it is made up....

Lets look at the full Schnieder quotw from the Discover magazine interview.  The highlighted part represents the part of the quote which made it to the climate denier website which you parrot:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989.)

?------

?There two possibilites and only one conclusion:

?First Mr. Crockett is incapable of questioning the validity of anything at odds with his worldview and therefore is easily misled and fooled and should not be trusted, the second is that he is aware of the falsehoods that he posts.

?He has demonstrated a lack of critical judgement at best and blatant dishonesty at worst. It should be clear that he has zero credibility. To call him a lieing sack of shit does disservice to bags of fertilizer everywhere.... 

?This is a classic demonstration of the techniques used by denialistas  to confuse and misdirect the AGW debate. Thank you for showing your true colors for all to see...

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 21:07 | 2582312 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

So the man did say that he exaggerates the effects of climate change in order to frighten people and that he sees honesty as a bar to being "effective." Effective at what? What is it about the science of climate change and the remedies proposed that makes it necessary to lie? The need for dishonesty seems to be unique to climate change science as it is my understanding that good science is based on openness and honesty -- especially when the proposed solutions will cost trillions upon trillions of dollars. Ya know?

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:08 | 2582442 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I take it back, you are a weaseling sack of shit and there is no doubt about your honesty, intellectual or otherwise....

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 22:51 | 2582477 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Why is it illegitimate to ask why climate scientists admit that they have to lie to be effective? It seems to be an obvious question.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 23:06 | 2582577 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

As if that is what you are *really* asking...  

And still you accuse scientists with lieing and provide fabricated evidence...

You didn't do any leg work to verify things because you are not interested in the truth.  That is why you do not understand science or scientists...

You would not even know how to be a real skeptic, it requires real work....

You a merely a denialista, a hack with no ability to sift through lies if that is what you want to hear...

BTW, just so you know real scientists do not accept money in any way that would compromise their integrity...And, its funny in that almost every respectable academic that comes out on the side of AGW being wrong has ties to fossil fuel funds... Did you ask them about their distortions? Strange that, eh?

Shills are whores, a necessary evil of sorts, you are worse, a mere slut, since you lie for free.... 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 23:22 | 2582610 Likstane
Likstane's picture

Judge Likstane sees it 11-1 in favor of crockett.  To the showers Flakmeister.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 23:28 | 2582622 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

As if that is what you are *really* asking... 

 

What I asked is what I asked. It's not any more complicated than that. Either there's a good reason for scientists to lie about global warming or there isn't. We already know that they do it by their own admission, I'd just like to know why.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 23:55 | 2582672 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

ice melts....................big deal

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:30 | 2581845 Zymurguy
Zymurguy's picture

Well, it's a nice try.  But most of these ships run either on traditional internal combustion diesel engines or jet turbines.  It's easy to build (or even modify) diesel engines that can run on diesel, kerosene, jet-a fuel, or any of a multitude of similarly refined fuels (or oils as it were).  Also, given the ample amount of safe harbors for our ships and shipyards across the globe and their massive support flotilla they have NO reason to consider overly priced green wanna-be fuel as part of their strategic agenda.

I can assure you the Navy has no choice in this matter - it's purely politically driven by the green agenda of our current executive administration.

As others have pointed out, this is not new technology.  Diesel was first invented as a bio-fuel so large farms could produce their own fuel to run their own machinery in a self sufficient manner.  But you can see how that ended up.  Now that the hobbiests and speculating corporations have come back to producing bio-diesel vs. petro-diesel everyone thinks it'll be the salvation of the world... ahem, it could be a great direction to take if the US govt. would stop the EPA from putting so many restrictions on diesel emmisions and the govt. would stop giving our money away to un-sustainable business models of those corporations trying to make it.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:15 | 2581958 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Do you just make shit up on the fly?

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 00:48 | 2582711 Praetor
Praetor's picture

Sure Zymurguy, I think your diesel engines will last 5 minutes tops on these alternate fuels, that's if you can get combustion going in the first place. Please inform me what similarities in octane number and cetane number these fuels have that make them magically interchangeable?

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 04:02 | 2582902 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Jesus fucking christ, you can make a diesel engine that runs on COAL DUST if you want it to...

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 07:05 | 2583027 Praetor
Praetor's picture

Show me a successful , long term performing diesel engine that runs on coal dust you fuckwit. This post shows exactly what we already know- you know fuck all.

You think the Nazi's went to all the trouble to use the Tropsch-Fricher process to convert coal to fuel if they could just use coal dust to drive their war machines?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:17 | 2581604 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Ah...military "intelligence."

Henry Ford is cursing the Navy from his grave

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:25 | 2581476 Ookspay
Ookspay's picture

Times like these require high thc, cbn and cbd content. I strongly recommend NYC diesel or Northern Lights, hell, smoke 'em both. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:21 | 2581612 Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture

 

 

"This is one of the many reasons we should legalize hemp".

Hemp is a natural living thing that occurs naturally on the planet. Why would anyone or anything make it illegal? If I start eating sand I am sure it will eventually cause harm to my body; let’s make that illegal too.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:41 | 2581879 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

Hmm.  If we made sand illegal, and declared WAR ON SAND, I wonder where all the action would be...Ah fuck it.  We're already there. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:21 | 2582108 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

If you fight a War on Sand then in what do you draw the proverbial line?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 20:03 | 2582210 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

In the angel dust.  duh. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:22 | 2581446 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Another problem is that the Navy cannot buy biofuels, in, uh, FOREIGN ports...  You know, closer to where any action that would happen

Yet another .gov green program to: FAIL!

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:29 | 2581466 knightowl77
knightowl77's picture

Naw we'll probably invade a couple of countries and force them to build biofuel plants where we need them... /sarc

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 00:32 | 2582728 akak
akak's picture

"We fight the anti-biodieselfuelist extremists over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:07 | 2581585 The trend is yo...
The trend is your friend's picture

The blatant abuse of power is just out of control.  Pissing away money like its toliet paper...oh wait it is and has anyone actually kept tabs on the cost of toliet paper.  It is getting extremely expensive to wipe your ass.  Soon enough it will be cheaper to clean with fiat....Be wary if papercuts...OOUCH

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:23 | 2582114 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

No worries. I'm about half way through my five year supply.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:10 | 2581401 orangedrinkandchips
orangedrinkandchips's picture

You down with OPM! ya, you know me!

 

I would do ANYTHING WITH YOUR MONEY!!!! ANYTHING!

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:14 | 2581411 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

History of the British Navy = Rum, sodomy and the lash.

History of the USA navy = Martinis, larceny and the graft.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:28 | 2582126 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit, but all new ratings are warned that if they wake up in the morning and find any toothmarks at all anywhere on their bodies, they're to tell me immediately so that I can immediately take every measure to hush the whole thing up. And, finally, necrophilia is right out.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evExHXFtNfQ

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:10 | 2581402 Ookspay
Ookspay's picture

Brilliant! The systematic destruction of a once great nation is nearly complete.

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:11 | 2581403 Lost Wages
Lost Wages's picture

If I were spending other people's money I'd be buying weed, silver and drums instead of boring old fuels.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:12 | 2581405 TheDarkKnight
TheDarkKnight's picture

And here I thought my tax money was going to some broken solar panels somewhere but nooo...

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:13 | 2581408 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

The Navy, who's primary job is to facilitate global commerce and make the world safe for oil tankers, is 1. convinced of peak oil, and 2.  global warming.  As well as the pentagon.

 

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:13 | 2581409 NumberNone
NumberNone's picture

Long Leprechaun nipples..

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:39 | 2581443 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

Everyone knows leprechauns don't have nipples! 

*edit - But if you're interested in a leprechaun nipple derivative fund I know of one.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:25 | 2581460 ihedgemyhedges
ihedgemyhedges's picture

Now I've got so many questions.  I mean, do you use the actual nipple?  Or do you use milk from the leprechaun nipple?  If you use the milk, how many lactating leprechauns would it take to make a gallon of bio-fuel?

God, this whole clean energy thing is so confusing..............

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:31 | 2581473 FL_Conservative
FL_Conservative's picture

I can't wait to see the Time magazine cover for that issue.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:34 | 2581482 CaptainObvious
CaptainObvious's picture

I dunno, do leprechauns practice attachment parenting?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:14 | 2581410 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Hey, this is the stuff that TMosely said was going to solve Peak Oil....

You do realize that the Navy and the Airforce are full aware of what Peak Oil implies and they are desperate to find something that can replace the ~1 million bpd that the US military relies on (no that was not not a typo)....

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:20 | 2581433 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

"Peak Oil" is only slightly more credible than "Anthropogenic Global Warming".

Plenty of oil out there if you want to look for it, and don't give me that bullshit about "there isn't any easy oil left" - Do you think in the current climate any corporation/nation would tell the truth about reserves?  Shit like that gets "democracy"/nationalization brought to you at the barrel of a gun.

The world will wisely wait until the USSA Empire (R) collapses to "discover" "new" huge reserves...  The USSA included!

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:24 | 2581454 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Yes, there is truth in what you say about lots of oil still out there, + 1.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:05 | 2581580 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

When it comes to the subject of energy the main concern is EROEI.  WHen it comes to everything else it is ROI.  Both are falling for the energy complex.

It isn't about a last drop of oil, it is about recovering oil at a price where living standards are similar to where the have been for the last century.  Those living standards are falling because of a decreasing EROEI and a decreasing ROI.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:31 | 2581639 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Very well said....

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 04:56 | 2582935 Redhotfill
Redhotfill's picture

Oh I thought it was falling because of the actions of the Rothchilds via Central banking and FIAT currencies. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:29 | 2581468 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Standard rookie error on your part....

You amatuers always conflate resources with reserves and ignore flow rates... Classic example of not understanding the role of "rate of change" in understanding processes, you should go back and learn some differential equations....

Seriously, who gives a fuck if there are 300 billion barrels of oil equivalent in the Athabasca if the maximum production rate is ~4 mmbpd....

Moreover, you probably wouldn't know the difference between Bitumen, Kerogen and Bonny Light if your life depended on it...

So if you want to play the Peak Oil game, bring something to the table that isn't a rehash of shit shills sell to bilk old people out of their savings...

This is not Yahoo! anymore, you have convince some people that *know* their stuff...

Now kindly for the benefit of us all here, STFU.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:37 | 2581489 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Oh, yeah...  I'm clearly not educated enough to analyze the oil market in a scientific/political/historical context - Because I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU, LMFAO.

Here's a hint:  Some of these future oilfields AREN'T WITHIN SINGLE NATIONAL BOUNDARIES.

But I hope you ignore that, and go "All in" on your opinion.  You clearly need a good swift kick in the nuts, courtesy of your own arrogant closed-minded lack of curiosity and rational thinking.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:43 | 2581513 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Suprise me you begger...

You talk trash and shit here with out any real content... you are a fucking narcissist blowhard....

Now here is a little fact for you:

From 1994-2004, oil industry CAPEX was 2.4 trillion dollars, flows increased by ~12 million barrels a day

From 2005-2010, oil industry CAPEX was 2.4 trillion dollars, flows *decreased* by 200,000 bpd...

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:01 | 2581565 PhattyBuoy
PhattyBuoy's picture

Surely, all those untapped reserves will magically bubble up to the surface for Jed Clampett in the Beverly Hillbillies ....

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:11 | 2581594 samsara
samsara's picture

Flak,  Again, 

 "Some minds are like cement,  all mixed up and permently set".

He/she doesn't doesn't comprehend that it doesn't matter if you have a Million dollars in the bank if you are only allowed to withdraw $100 a month and his rent is $1000 a month.  He will still say he is rich while being evicted. 

If a poster talks about 'Reserves'  and not 'Flow Rate'  write him/her off as a flake.

Geology and Thermodynamics was not in his course of study.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:34 | 2581648 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

If you want to talk about current flow rate, sure.  There is a bottleneck. But if we're talking "easy oil", there's a shitload.  And it ain't oil sands or other hard to extract hydrocarbons.

A better question is how fast can it be brought on line when current vested interests can no longer impose their hegemony.

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:41 | 2581668 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Yes!  Let's destroy the Rockies and the Brasilian rainforest searching for oil and gas!  Then we can continue to turn people's tap water into flamable liquid!  Soon we may not be able to have a hospitable planet, but we will be recovering more energy!  Yippie!

Let's continue to destroy the world's largest fresh water aquifir for tar sands!  Let's cause oil spill after oil spill drilling the ocean floor!  Who cares about future generations?  We need the oil now!

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:50 | 2581710 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Lol, I know of folks who have been getting gas out of their pipes long before anybody made a big deal about it.  The shit has been bubbling up for generations.

Don't believe everything you read on the Innernets, Lennie.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:03 | 2581759 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Anyway, Tar Sands have a horrible EROEI due to the fact that you have to boil water with natgas to seperate the sand from the oil.  And it is destroying the world's largest fresh water aquifir.  Tap the rockies?  Destroy the glaciers and the fresh water runoff.  Etc.

But hey, you know, how about some more weird logical theories from you, telling me I am appealing to authority and whatnot.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:24 | 2581820 Abitdodgie
Abitdodgie's picture

The Canadians don't give a fuck about Canada and there water so fuck it, lets wreck the place and take there oil for bits of paper. A sucker born every min.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:43 | 2581887 El Tuco
El Tuco's picture

You are correct Sir, Alberta is turning into China when it comes to the environment. You can only shit in your drinking water for so long before it makes you sick.......

At least the cancer industry in Alberta will be busy for the next 50 years +.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:45 | 2581894 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

*Their water.  

 

Their water happens to roll downhill and becomes our water.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:48 | 2582177 Ookspay
Ookspay's picture

By all means, shut off your computer and go live in a yurt in the outback, NOW! Walk the walk lennon, don't let the yurt flap hit you in the ass!

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:19 | 2581607 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Demand (The rate they pulled it) dropped during those same periods as well. I have no clue what I'm on about. I just work in the labs, the rest of the people I know do the actual drilling. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:24 | 2581617 ceilidh_trail
ceilidh_trail's picture

inflation adjustment lacking here- probably equals your "flow decrease", no real decline?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:27 | 2581624 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

 

Suprise me you begger...

You talk trash and shit here with out any real content... you are a fucking narcissist blowhard....

Now here is a little fact for you:

From 1994-2004, oil industry CAPEX was 2.4 trillion dollars, flows increased by ~12 million barrels a day

From 2005-2010, oil industry CAPEX was 2.4 trillion dollars, flows *decreased* by 200,000 bpd...

You want me to give away more of my shit for FREE?

I already gave you a giant fucking hint, which you ignored.  Go fuck yourself.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:30 | 2581633 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You are pathetic... especially when you have been pwned....

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:36 | 2581655 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Ignore the argument, declare victory!  Brilliant!  You win, yayyy!

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:49 | 2581706 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Beg pardon???  What argument?

Are you now a front man from Methane Clathrate scam? Or is it Kerogen claims in the Green River basin? Did you just learn that Titan has methane lakes?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:50 | 2581716 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

I'm not going to repeat myself.  Go back and re-read.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:03 | 2581762 Jake88
Jake88's picture

you talk about narcissists. what do you have about 20 posts here? pot kettle? you rant and curse people. problem? get help dude.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:25 | 2581975 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You must be a newbie here...

Anyone who denies AGW on a the basis of ideology is a narcissist or a paid shill.... No one is stupid enough to pay Low Profile for anything except maybe  a back room blowjob.... Kinda of narrows things down, eh?

Count the AGW deniers here that scream "How dare someone even hint that my freedom has limits..." LP is clearly in that category....

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 23:42 | 2582644 Likstane
Likstane's picture

Crockett kicks your ass and then Lowprofile takes your lunch money.  Now you have to pick on Newbie.  Hahahahah.  Go beat up your little sister. 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 00:06 | 2582690 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

Anyone who denies AGW on a the basis of ideology is a narcissist or a paid shill

 

But when scientists, politicians and activists admit that they lie about global warming in other to pursue social agendas that makes them good people?

 

"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.
"
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

 

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
."
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

 

The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models
.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

 


"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience
."
- Al Gore,
Climate Change activist

 

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. -- Dr. Stephen Schneider, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989.)

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 00:24 | 2582720 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And he peddles out a completely made up quote by Folland....

I dare you to come up with the attribution and source for that one...

More deception from an intellectually bankrupt denialista...

What part of the science is wrong? What data is faked or fudged? Peddling out quotes by politicians does nothing to change the reality of AGW...  

You are a lieing sack of shit....

And this fucker claims to be a Liberatarian, yet he eschews any personal responsibility for AGW... Just more evidence that you are just another selfish narcissist posing as a Liberatarian...

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 00:45 | 2582746 Likstane
Likstane's picture

Just because a quote you haven't heard of gets used doesn't mean it was made up.  Your argument for warming sounds like a lying scientist who has been caught and then gets pissed because no one believes him. 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 01:16 | 2582765 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Would you like to argue the science? Are you capable?

Lets start with a layman's review:

http://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html

of this paper:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

A 5+ sigma signal for a warming trend of 0.16°C per decade from 1979 through 2010, 0.15°C per decade from 1998 through 2010, and 0.18°C per decade from 2000 through 2010...

I'll check back in the morning to see what kind of fool you make of yourself... 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 01:27 | 2582789 Likstane
Likstane's picture

I don't have to be an expert in junk science to figure out bullshit.  My weatherman can't get tomorrows forecast right more than half the time.  A bunch of scientists have been caught making bogus temperature graphs.  An entire "industry/exchange" has been predicated on the trading of carbon credits.  My high school chemistry and biology teachers told me plants love CO2.  Cut and paste all the figures/graphs/quotes/emotional appeals you want, but anyone with a modicum of common sense will see through the bullshit that is called man made global warming and the "heroic" fight against it.  You would be better off determining where the money that is paid to "combat" global warming is going.  

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 01:50 | 2582806 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Are you serious?

Is this the best you can do?

You should be embarrassed....

Out of curiousity, did you graduate from HS or were you just "sittin' in" on those courses...

-----

Tyler, can we get the CAPTCHA back, it is clear that we do need some form of intelligence filter in order to post on ZH....

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 01:59 | 2582814 Likstane
Likstane's picture

lowprofile out graphed/quoted/statted you.  You are not going to believe common sense, so I'll cut to the end. Go piss up a rope. 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 02:16 | 2582828 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Your reply was so fucking lame that if I tried to write a parody of what a stupid hick would write as a rebuttal to AGW I could not match your effort... And the truly sad thing is that you were serious....

If you don't get it, look up this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

I suggest you start your education on climate science with this

http://www.skepticalscience.com/basics_one.html

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 02:37 | 2582842 Likstane
Likstane's picture

climate "science" !   How about calling it what it is...Really dumb people and educated idiots falling for another way  to steal wealth.  Wake up and smell the coffee.  I'll bet you have some edumacation credentials to show how smart you are because you sure ain't gettin' by with common sense. 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 04:06 | 2582905 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

This will help with the AGW lemmings http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/

Just tell them go fucking read the last year of articles on that site.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 10:05 | 2583356 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Maybe you could enlighten us on what the first article really implies, not what it seems to?

Oh, I am sorry, you can't because you don't have a fucking clue what it is about yourself...

Why don't you google what fraction of radiative forcing is from SWV....

I'll help you

http://www.skepticalscience.com/role-of-stratospheric-water-vapor-in-global-warming.html

I can lead you to water, but I can't make you drink....

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 05:05 | 2582937 Redhotfill
Redhotfill's picture

AGW?    Al Gore's Warming?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:47 | 2582019 Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture

 

 

Oh JFC here we go again ……. Peak Oil is not about running out of oil …… Everyone should check out The Oil Drum and check Chris Martenson’s crash course, at least the part about Peak Oil. Look …. Its  EROEI !!!!?  (or EROI if you prefer) If it takes 1.01 barrels of oil to get 1.0 out of the ground it doesn’t make sense WTF don’t you people get? And listen to Flakmeisterski too……. You have got to have the flow, check out the Oil Usage Clock – look at it for 15 seconds and let it sink in.

 

Where in the Hell is Trav7777 when you need him – no really where has he been?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:25 | 2582122 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

He got banned for being too much of a bigot.... hard to believe but true (AFAIK)....

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 01:45 | 2582803 akak
akak's picture

By that rationale, AnAnonymousAnus should have been banned long ago as well for his incessant drumbeat of anti-American bigotry and nonsense.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 02:00 | 2582818 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

No... think of the difference between a rambling fool that is easily ignored and a calculating bigot who denies the Holocaust... You are astute enough to detect the difference...

And as for nonsense, when did that become a punishable offense here?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:32 | 2581477 michael_engineer
michael_engineer's picture

These smart and influential people beg to differ with your assessment on peak oil, and they have the intelligence and connections and inside knowledge to be credible too.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-07-15-2573469553_x.htm

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:51 | 2581537 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

Uh, this is what the people in your link had to say:

 

The letter includes 13 broad recommendations. They include aggressively promoting energy efficiency and reducing energy consumption, increased commitments to both nuclear energy and renewable energy sources, making coal more environmentally acceptable and moving transportation away from oil as a fuel.

 

Sounds like they're real rosy about the oil future, don't it? 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:03 | 2581570 Dapper Dan
Dapper Dan's picture

and some of the people from the letter,

senders of the letter include former Secretaries of State James A. Baker and George Shultz, former Defense Secretaries Frank Carlucci, William Cohen, William Perry and James Schlesinger; former senior White House advisers Howard Baker, Robert "Bud" McFarlane, Kenneth Duberstein and Brent Scowcroft; former Energy Secretaries James Watkins and Spencer Abraham; former CIA Director James Woolsey; former Commerce Secretary Donald Evans; former Democratic Sens. J. Bennett Johnston, Sam Nunn and Charles Robb; and former Republican Sen. George Allen.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:30 | 2581632 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

If your point, like Alex Jones, is that because these people are evil, we should believe the opposite of everything they say, then you are using the false logic of "If A then not B".  We need to deduce through empiracle evidence what the truth is, and not use our opinions of such men to justify our beliefs.

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:38 | 2581661 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

A better question is "are they impartial?" and "are they trustworthy?".

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:43 | 2581680 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Ignore them!  You are foolish to even consider what they say whatever their arguement is.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:53 | 2581726 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Consider their argument, consider their trustworthiness, consider their impartiality, then decide for yourself on what the truth likely is.

Oh, and I know it's hard, but try to not be such an asshole.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:07 | 2581772 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

They need no concideration.  Just hang 'em high.

And you are the one using ad hom, calling me names.

Low Profile, you are a joke here.  Keep trolling, you masochistic fuck.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:28 | 2581833 Abitdodgie
Abitdodgie's picture

LowProfile you sound a lot like Trav777.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:41 | 2581877 michael_engineer
michael_engineer's picture

Looks a little like him too, minus THE FINGER!!!

Can someone do a forensic analysis on his speech patterns and topics and hot buttons to see if there is a high correlation?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:04 | 2581945 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Naw, they overlapped as users and Low Profile is stupid and hateful... Trav was just hateful...

I do recall Trav ripping him a new one once....

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:10 | 2581592 michael_engineer
michael_engineer's picture

Was refuting low profile user, and supporting flakmeister if you couldn't tell by the order.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:18 | 2581606 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

Boy you're right.  I couldn't tell.  Sometimes I should just hold a ruler up to the screen. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:37 | 2581801 michael_engineer
michael_engineer's picture

Looks like I got Low Profile tilted pretty good from his below post!

He bellows below.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:55 | 2582191 CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

That's a good way to play it.

I have commented exhaustively here at ZH and elsewhere on techical details involving permeability and porosity, as well as laying out joules ratios and BTUs per barrel for oil vs pathetic alternatives. 

I have learned a lesson.  If people have no engineering or physics background, they cannot understand.

I have downshifted to your approach.  Things like:

1) Drilling thousands of feet down under thousands of feet of ocean is not what a world with abundance does, especially a world with Oklahoma in it, in which there are no environmental obstacles, given that all the leases have been bought.  Oklahoma is presently producing oil at a rate less than 25% of its peak, which was in 1927 -- and yes, that is 85ish years of technology brought to bear that has failed to undo the 75% decline.

2) The price of oil is 6.5 million BTUs per 42 gallon barrel.  It is measured thus.  Not in dollars, euros, ounces of gold or anything else.  Its price is what it costs in BTUs to get it out, and that price is exploding.

3) Without transportation, you have nothing.  Your nuclear power plant has parts fail and spares can't transport.  Food can't transport.  Spare parts for ANYTHING cannot transport.  Oil is everything.  And yes, "we got along without oil before and we'll do it again" is 100% correct.  The 800 million people on earth that got along without oil can get along without it again.  The rest will die.  Soon.

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 09:22 | 2582729 Praetor
Praetor's picture

The other lesson to learn at ZH is that if someone is no good at numbers, has never attempted to learn the topic at hand, there is a 100% probability they know more than the people who may have had experience in the field.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:25 | 2581618 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

 

These smart and influential people beg to differ with your assessment on peak oil, and they have the intelligence and connections and inside knowledge to be credible too.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-07-15-2573469553_x.htm

 

Firstly, anyone who calls:

"Secretaries of State James A. Baker and George Shultz, former Defense Secretaries Frank Carlucci, William Cohen, William Perry and James Schlesinger; former senior White House advisers Howard Baker, Robert "Bud" McFarlane, Kenneth Duberstein and Brent Scowcroft; former Energy Secretaries James Watkins and Spencer Abraham; former CIA Director James Woolsey; former Commerce Secretary Donald Evans; former Democratic Sens. J. Bennett Johnston, Sam Nunn and Charles Robb; and former Republican Sen. George Allen"

THOSE STATIST FASCIST FUCKS "STATESMEN" is BEYOND MY CONTEMPT.

And if they were so fuckin' smart, why didn't they see the fucking financial crisis coming, asshole?!

I don't trust these fuckers as far as I can throw them.  The oil will flow, it's just that the USSA Empire (R) WON'T BE IN CONTROL OF IT.

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:25 | 2581823 michael_engineer
michael_engineer's picture

I think they did see it coming. That link is from 2008 and the financial crisis was just starting to kick in. They even try to warn people.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:47 | 2581699 tmosley
tmosley's picture

I love how you have to lie about other people's positions to make yourself seem more intelligent.

I said that there is a cap on how high oil prices can go because of biofuels, not that biofuels were going to "solve Peak Oil".  Peak oil is going to be delayed/made moot by thousands of technological advances, some of which I have described here.  

You are weak and stupid, just like your mentor.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:58 | 2581744 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Fuck, Cliffie, do I have to tag and file a link every time you make an ass of yourself on one or more of the following:

1) Bio-diesel from algae

2) Ionic liquids to "dissolve" trapped oil

3) Pyrolysis 

4) Graphene for everything (don't get me wrong, it *is* neat stuff, but when you say that publicly funded research is a waste of taxpayer money and then tout the virtues of a material developed through public research funding, I just have to laugh at your intellectual honesty)...

Don't you have some research to show us how RoundUp is not an Endocrine disruptor? I do wish I had tagged that gem of yours....

Did you check the C02 levels? Can you explain how and when they were higher than present while H. Sapiens has been running around? That was a gem of yours from this past  weekend...

You are clown... give it up and stick to pimping silver....

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:42 | 2581883 tmosley
tmosley's picture

No, you have to stop lying like your worthless mentor.

You seem to think that there is no such thing as technological advance.  I simply show otherwise.

Also, you act as if the properties of a type of material have something to do with the source of the funding of the peope who discover them.  NEWSFLASH: practically 100% of research is government funded now.  And the vast majority of the money is WASTED.  SOME goes to good projects like graphene, and ionic liquids research, but far, FAR less than would be the case if it were private industry funding these things.  You call me intellectually dishonest for existing within a system while pointing out that it is far from ideal.  This is stupid.

I never said anything about Roundup's mechanism of action.  You are a liar and a coward for continuing to proclaim that I said that without proof.

And now you are confusing the things I don't say with what others do say about CO2.  I didn't make ANY statements regarding CO2 in that thread.  I just pointed out your continuous hypocrisy there.  I like how you still haven't reconciled your belief in AGW with your belief in Peak Hydrocarbons.  All this talk about how awful it will be a hundred years from now due to CO2, but also claiming that peak oil is HERE.  Hilarious.

Calling me a clown doesn't make it so.  It only shows the world how childish you are.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:16 | 2581412 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

unicorn tears and leprechaun nipples

You crack me up Tyler...

 

A modest proposal.....reduce the size of the military and there won't be a need for $26.00 a gallon biofuel.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:15 | 2581413 Ookspay
Ookspay's picture

America's destryers:

Unions

Environmental wackos

Lawyers

Universities

Liberals (all of the above)

 

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:21 | 2581437 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

1) Sociopaths in positions of fiduciary responsibility...

2) Rush Limbaugh

3) Stupid people like the above poster who cannot even figure out when they are being skull fucked by 1) and who get their worldview from 2)

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:21 | 2581440 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

Which one of those groups have taken over the Pentagon and the US Armed forces? 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:34 | 2581483 Ookspay
Ookspay's picture

All, except the unions.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 15:57 | 2581558 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

You know the chair force is one of the biggest groups of bible thumpers on the planet?  And the Marines, poster boys for the occupy movement, right?  You're making chit up mate. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:22 | 2581614 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Just because you're religious doesn't mean you are not a Liberal. Where do you think the whole term Liberal during the Revolutionary Era came from? What about the Progressive movement? Both were highly religious movements that believed in Socialism-lite. 

Next time read some history outside of that crap they teach you in school.

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:56 | 2581917 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

I'm well aware what a liberal, and classical liberals are.  I'm also aware that Christian Dominionist and Fundementalst who are rabid rightwingers who want to bring Jeezus back, have taken over the air force.

 

So why don't you take your head out of a history book and pay attention to what the fuck has been going on, instead of trying to score cheap points trying to look all smart bringing up the revolutionary era. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:18 | 2581605 falak pema
falak pema's picture

no bankstas and libertarian crony capitalists? aww! you've not read the news since 2007...

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 16:24 | 2581616 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

There are no Libertarians in any of those. There might be some Conservatives or Minarchists, but you'll never see a Libertarian in office. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:23 | 2581804 falak pema
falak pema's picture

excuse my understanding of the refinements of "americanese"; but to a non american, all those from Maggie to Ronny to GBW, were economic libertarians, some more so than others. They cut government spending except in Defense as they were also hegemonists. If you include "isolationist" politicians in your assessment of what is a libertarian, I can understand your reservations. But from the non american world's viewpoint, the neo-conservative economic doctrine initiated by RR, aka Reaganomics, and continued by Greenspan and GS Glass Steagall reformists re-inforced the neo-con libertarian ideology that has made US finance what it has become. 

I know you guys like to play monday morning quarterbacking these days, to cry out those GWB shills were not libertarians. I don't buy it. All those Oligarchs, the Bechtels, the Bushes, the Cheneys, the Oil lobby barons like Kochs today, represent the scions of that mind set : uber-alles hegemony and oligarchy controlled "free markets"; as practiced by the ROckafellas and Fords of old. Same mind set as of the 1900-1930 period. That is libertarian USA in essence; NOT IN THEORY BUT IN PRACTICE. I don't buy your new version of ideological hairsplitting.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 17:35 | 2581856 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

None of those people you mentioned are Libertarian, not even in the slightest. 

A Neo-Con is the furthest thing from Libertarian. The Tyler's are Libertarian, Ludwig Von Mises was Libertarian, F. A. Hayek was Libertarian. Most of all Rothbard was Libertarian. You can not be Libertarian if you accept the the State in any way, becuase it violates the core tenet of Libertarianism, which is the Non-Aggression Principle.  

 

You can call those people Libertarian all you wish, but seeing as how it was Rothbard that invented the term, it's not like you'd be correct. It's not a matter of Theory or Practice, it's a matter of Statist versus non-statist. You can not a statist and Libertarian. That's like you being gay but not liking dick, it just doesn't work that way. 

 

Then again, you aren't American, and you have no idea what the fuck you are talking. 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 18:32 | 2581957 falak pema
falak pema's picture

don't throw theory at me, I'm talking real politics. Here is an assessment of a economist and historian :

 

Du keynésianisme au libertarianisme.
La place de la monnaie dans les transformations du savoir économique autorisé
From keynesianism to libertarianism.
The place of money in the transformations of the authorized economic knowledge Del keynesianismo al libertarianismo.
El lugar de la moneda en las transformaciones del saber económico autorizado Bruno Théret  Résumés http://regulation.revues.org/images/bg.png); background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ededed; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: #d7d7d7; margin-left: -1px; display: block; float: left; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-right: 1.2em; padding-bottom: 0.3em; padding-left: 1.2em; background-position: 100% -500px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;" hreflang="fr" href="http://regulation.revues.org/9529#abstract-9529-fr">Françaishttp://regulation.revues.org/images/bg.png); background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: #d7d7d7; margin-left: -1px; display: block; float: left; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-right: 1.2em; padding-bottom: 0.3em; padding-left: 1.2em; font-style: normal; cursor: default; background-position: 100% -600px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;" hreflang="en" href="http://regulation.revues.org/9529#abstract-9529-en">Englishhttp://regulation.revues.org/images/bg.png); background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ededed; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: #d7d7d7; margin-left: -1px; display: block; float: left; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-right: 1.2em; padding-bottom: 0.3em; padding-left: 1.2em; background-position: 100% -500px; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;" hreflang="es" href="http://regulation.revues.org/9529#abstract-9529-es">Español

 

This article looks for an understanding and explanation of the responsability of economics in the upsurge and development of the present crisis. It studies the interdependencies between the three streams of ideas which today dominate the departments of economics and finance of universities. Financial economics and « new classical » macroeconomics, combined with a renewal of « austrian » economics, form, thanks to their common reference to a libertarian ideology, an oligopoly which controls the new economic science that jointly with financial globalization has developped in the United States. As the paper starts from the evidence that the present crisis finds its origin at the monetary level, the analysis of this oligopoly is based on the place that money has in its three components. In Section I we justify this choice. Section II shows how money, whose characteristic is to have no economic role in General Equilibrium Theory, has tormented american mainstream economics since the nineteen seventies. Section III displays a topography of the field of economic ideas that allows to understand how the three libertarian streams of ideas, despite their large differences, were able to unite in order to form an hegemonic block and monopolize the production of authorized economic discourses. Final Section IV examines the paradox of a science that professes perfect self-regulation of markets and therefore its own uselessness, but in the same time has had an increasing role in the economic and political functionning of the present capitalist market economy.....

I am talking of the political history of the USA since the 1970s and its acceleration under RR upto today. As mentioned in this article, it is principally inspired by Libertarian economics. That is PAX Americana as practiced.

Now, if you want to gobbledygook about people who are not actors of real politics and pontificate about THEORY, like a religious ideologue does about how life should be practiced, that is fine, but that is NOT the US reality of what it is. So go back to your church and leave those who prefer what this article takes as the economic premise accepted by most historical minded commentators of politics and economics. Its implications on how policy has been conducted in reality and the framework to which they refer is clearly : LIBERTARIAN.

 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 19:03 | 2582060 Ookspay
Ookspay's picture

Nicely put. The concepts of nation building or hegemony are anathema to libertarianism, and a perfect fit with neocon doctrine. Warmongering neocons are anything but libertatrians. In fact read the words of Americas founders and "entangling alliances" were predicted and warned against. America used to be a live and let live nation, but now the nanny state of liberal socialism imposes itself on a global scale.

 

Tue, 07/03/2012 - 00:54 | 2582754 Non Passaran
Non Passaran's picture

If you have a doctrine on how the economy should develop, you ain't no libertarian.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!