Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Costs of climate only one aspect of wealth transfers occurring . . .

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran
    Why haven t we been told who was selling American Airlines and United Airlines stock short at 285 times the regular rate of such trade in the few days before
    Message 1 of 19 , Nov 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Why haven't we been told who was selling American Airlines and United
      Airlines stock short at 285 times the regular rate of such trade in
      the few days before 9/11? There's that SEC working overtime for us,
      huh?

      Maybe Harvey Pitt is trying to blackmail his way into that cabinet
      post and pay raise. Not doing his job is probably way more important
      and valuable to the high and mighty?

      Yes it is about class and area based transfers of wealth:

      "...the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office revised its long-term
      forecasts, citing Bush's millionaire tax cut as the largest single
      factor in shrinking the projected 10-year budget surplus from $5.6
      trillion to $1.6 trillion—a $4 trillion downswing." See:
      http://www.aflcio.org/news/2002/0131_cbo.htm

      The parties are now defined clearly by population densities and road
      fascism. Low density populations benefit directly from free use of
      roads to come into areas of high density and use the infrastructure,
      whereas high density areas don't use the roads as much per person,
      nor have the same property tax basis. It allows the rich to become
      richer and it is reflected in all of the data. This results in
      unfairness in public education, welfare, and so forth by population
      density. The voting reflects policies favoring that the transfers of
      wealth continue. To blame it on welfare is a rationalization of the
      low density areas continuing these subsidies. Wars for oil is a
      perfect example. Climate change is another subsidy that everyone will
      pay for the low density areas to continue their lifestyles.

      These subsidies are stupid for a number of basic reasons. One is it
      cant be sustained. Two we just saw with Wellstone's death--climate
      instability from Doran waves. We will see more chaotic occurances in
      the future, in my view. Three is droughts that test the hydrology
      infrastructure and our ability to produce food to feed a growing
      population. Four is Hubbert's peak. See http://www.hubbertpeak.com/
      Five is wars for oil.

      http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100102_bush_advisors.html
      Bush Advisers Planned Iraq War Since 1990s
      "Oct. 1, 2002, 17:00 PDT (FTW) -- The George W. Bush Administration's
      intentions of removing Saddam Hussein from power are not a recent
      development by any stretch of the imagination. Top White House
      officials affiliated with conservative think tanks and past
      administrations have been developing strategies for removing the
      Iraqi leader since the 1990s."
      Joe Taglieri, FTW Staff
    • David
      ... Everybody has their own ideas of how they d like to see things done, scientists included. ... road ... Road fascism?? Now there s a term I will admit I
      Message 2 of 19 , Nov 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        > What is that agenda in reference to climate?
        >
        Everybody has their own ideas of how they'd like to see things done,
        scientists included.

        > She does so at fundraisers sponsered by huge multi billion dollar
        > corporations. She supports bad science and the machinary behind
        road
        > fascism.

        Road fascism?? Now there's a term I will admit I have never heard
        before. Please explain that to me!
      • Mike Doran
        ... Well, there are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. And no one is charged to use them. There is a gas tax, but it covers only about 1/3 of the costs
        Message 3 of 19 , Nov 6, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          > Road fascism?? Now there's a term I will admit I have never heard
          > before. Please explain that to me!

          Well, there are about 4 million miles of roads in the US.

          And no one is charged to use them.

          There is a gas tax, but it covers only about 1/3 of the costs of new
          roads and repair. The rest comes out of the general fund. Of
          course, the tax doesn't touch our defense spending for wars for oil
          and so forth.

          The roads are not just land but improvements. Those improvements are
          expensive. And since the gas tax only covers 1/3 of the costs, much
          comes out of the general taxpayers funds. It is socialist/fascist--
          not a free market deal. Now, even though, for instance, the 1998
          Highway Bill was 219 billion, the largest ever by a factor of 4 and
          that is just the Feds, it doesn't really capture the lay out of
          capital over at least a hundred years on our road system. And, most
          importantly, does not figure what are roads are worth as a system.

          It should further be pointed out that cost and value for use are two
          completely different things. Example. You own a home. If you tell
          me I can live in the home for my pro rata share of 1/3 the cost of a
          new room and repairs to the living room--but nothing more AND there
          are to be 100 people living their, my pro rata share is small. And
          your house is full.

          This is the reason for gridlock, and for SUVs and rising gas milage
          despite better technology. It is the simple fact that roads are a
          HIGHLY subsidized part of our lives--far and away the
          largest "government" asset. We think nothing of the fact that our
          culture is dominated by roads now.

          But it is a subsidy with social force. In 1960, like I said, 60
          percent of the US was city or small town. That is 1960 Census data.
          The most recent Census data has it at 60% in the burbs now. Recent
          studies show US citizens drive TWICE as much in just the past 10
          years. Our families are more apt to break up, and interestingly,
          women are less happy then they were in the 1970s when we drove less.
          I think men don't mind the drive as much but women are killed
          socially by their greater inability to be central figures in
          the "household" any more because of the greater and greater amount of
          time American families spred from their homes.

          Low density growth is the result, and it causes rot in the cities and
          small towns. The tax base decreases, social services like education
          are diminished. It is true that there is growth in the new burbs,
          but that growth is not planned nor will it be prepared to deal with
          the longer term issues like Hubbert's peak. And it is a growth
          pattern that cannot be sustained.

          My thing with this subsidy and transfer of wealth is that the roads
          as a monopoly is actaully a much larger subsidy then one would think
          at first blush. That is because the whole system has incredible
          economic meaning, from truckers to commuters who live in a rich area
          and work in a high density, poor area, further causing class
          differences between wealthy and poor, between thos living in low
          density areas and those living in high density areas. I think the
          whole system is worth about 10 trillion dollars, so even to provide
          roads at tolls with simple interest at mind would lead to 1 trillion
          in tolls, which comes done to thousands per American. This kind of
          cost reflection would drive down driving. We wouldn't as a culture
          be as apt to build large homes in the middle of no where and drive
          from them in 4,000 pound SUVs to return a 5 ounce video. This is an
          incredibly wasteful use of energy.

          Fascism is the only way to describe the politics of these roads--why
          we would want to continue a subsidy that is so short sighted from and
          ecological and economic standpoint.
        • David
          ... Of course I m charged to use them! I pay a registration fee for my car, I pay a road maintenance fee when I pay my property taxes, and I pay gasoline tax,
          Message 4 of 19 , Nov 7, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
            >
            > > Road fascism?? Now there's a term I will admit I have never heard
            > > before. Please explain that to me!
            >
            > Well, there are about 4 million miles of roads in the US.
            >
            > And no one is charged to use them.
            >

            Of course I'm charged to use them! I pay a registration fee for my
            car, I pay a road maintenance fee when I pay my property taxes, and I
            pay gasoline tax, all of which go to road building and maintencance.


            >
            > But it is a subsidy with social force. In 1960, like I said, 60
            > percent of the US was city or small town. That is 1960 Census data.
            > The most recent Census data has it at 60% in the burbs now. Recent
            > studies show US citizens drive TWICE as much in just the past 10
            > years. Our families are more apt to break up, and interestingly,
            > women are less happy then they were in the 1970s when we drove less.
            > I think men don't mind the drive as much but women are killed
            > socially by their greater inability to be central figures in
            > the "household" any more because of the greater and greater amount of
            > time American families spred from their homes.

            So where does that put me? I work out of town during the week, and I
            drive 400 miles to get home on the weekends (although I should be able
            to start flying very soon, thank goodness). I live just outside of
            the city limits of a small town (30,000 people). Am I causing rot in
            the cities? Should I have to pay thousands in road user fees? Would
            you keep me from getting home to my wife?

            >
            > Low density growth is the result, and it causes rot in the cities and
            > small towns. The tax base decreases, social services like education
            > are diminished. It is true that there is growth in the new burbs,
            > but that growth is not planned nor will it be prepared to deal with
            > the longer term issues like Hubbert's peak. And it is a growth
            > pattern that cannot be sustained.

            Shall we play the chicken-and-the egg thing? People went to the
            suburbs because of the fact that the big cities were already in
            serious decline. People wanted lower crime rates, lower taxes, and
            better schools for their children. Why is any of that bad?
          • Mike Doran
            ... heard ... I ... You only pay for about 1/3 of the cost of them through those taxes. But this differs from a use fee. While it is true to some degree that
            Message 5 of 19 , Nov 8, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
              > --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
              > >
              > > > Road fascism?? Now there's a term I will admit I have never
              heard
              > > > before. Please explain that to me!
              > >
              > > Well, there are about 4 million miles of roads in the US.
              > >
              > > And no one is charged to use them.
              > >
              >
              > Of course I'm charged to use them! I pay a registration fee for my
              > car, I pay a road maintenance fee when I pay my property taxes, and
              I
              > pay gasoline tax, all of which go to road building and maintencance.
              >
              >

              You only pay for about 1/3 of the cost of them through those taxes.
              But this differs from a use fee. While it is true to some degree
              that the more you drive the more gas tax you pay, if you break it
              down the cents you pay for gas is insignificant compared to how large
              the subsidy is for using a government asset for free.


              > >
              > > But it is a subsidy with social force. In 1960, like I said, 60
              > > percent of the US was city or small town. That is 1960 Census
              data.
              > > The most recent Census data has it at 60% in the burbs now.
              Recent
              > > studies show US citizens drive TWICE as much in just the past 10
              > > years. Our families are more apt to break up, and interestingly,
              > > women are less happy then they were in the 1970s when we drove
              less.
              > > I think men don't mind the drive as much but women are killed
              > > socially by their greater inability to be central figures in
              > > the "household" any more because of the greater and greater
              amount of
              > > time American families spred from their homes.
              >
              > So where does that put me? I work out of town during the week, and
              I
              > drive 400 miles to get home on the weekends (although I should be
              able
              > to start flying very soon, thank goodness). I live just outside of
              > the city limits of a small town (30,000 people). Am I causing rot
              in
              > the cities? Should I have to pay thousands in road user fees?

              Without question the subsidy allows you to have the job you have and
              live where you live. You know, I was studying a rare tornado that
              occurred in Salt Lake City in 1999 and looking at first why tornadoes
              were rare there and why one occurred. Turns out that there are
              mountains and the Great Salt Lake, which may have some EMF
              characteristics that inhibits tornadoes. In any event, what I
              learned is that south of the City are 20 small towns--that today have
              sprawed into a seemless web of suburbia. It is like that across the
              US.


              Would
              > you keep me from getting home to my wife?
              >

              That is an unfair question. The better question I will have you
              answer. Do you think free food in the Soviet Union was a good idea?


              > >
              > > Low density growth is the result, and it causes rot in the cities
              and
              > > small towns. The tax base decreases, social services like
              education
              > > are diminished. It is true that there is growth in the new
              burbs,
              > > but that growth is not planned nor will it be prepared to deal
              with
              > > the longer term issues like Hubbert's peak. And it is a growth
              > > pattern that cannot be sustained.
              >
              > Shall we play the chicken-and-the egg thing? People went to the
              > suburbs because of the fact that the big cities were already in
              > serious decline. People wanted lower crime rates, lower taxes, and
              > better schools for their children. Why is any of that bad?

              Because it comes from the subsidy with the cost of making it worse
              for those who do live in higher density areas. And it isn't
              sustainable--indeed already the economy is feeling it and we haven't
              had the impact of Hubbert's peak or serious climate change from our
              activity . . . yet. And mostly because there IS a social cost to
              road fascism.

              BTW, if roads were tolled you could eliminate other taxes. Sure it
              would discourage driving, but do you honestly think it makes any
              sense to drive a 4,000 pound SUV to return that 5 ounce video?
              Really?
            • David
              ... And its a good thing too, or I would be unemployed. Been there, done that, couldn t afford the t-shirt. ... Uhhh, you lost me. What does that have to do
              Message 6 of 19 , Nov 8, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                > Without question the subsidy allows you to have the job you have and
                > live where you live.

                And its a good thing too, or I would be unemployed. Been there, done
                that, couldn't afford the t-shirt.


                > Would
                > > you keep me from getting home to my wife?
                > >
                >
                > That is an unfair question. The better question I will have you
                > answer. Do you think free food in the Soviet Union was a good idea?
                >

                Uhhh, you lost me. What does that have to do with roads?


                > Because it comes from the subsidy with the cost of making it worse
                > for those who do live in higher density areas. And it isn't
                > sustainable--indeed already the economy is feeling it and we haven't
                > had the impact of Hubbert's peak or serious climate change from our
                > activity . . . yet. And mostly because there IS a social cost to
                > road fascism.

                Well, I live in the largest city in my part of the state! It really
                isn't big enough to have suburbs, so I guess that's not a good
                example. So, let's take where I am working, which is in the
                Washington, DC area. There are definitely a LOT of suburbs here. In
                fact, I stay in one suburb (Chantilly, VA), and work in another
                (Reston, VA). So what would you have us do? Every leave the suburb
                towns and move to DC proper? That would be impossible! There's no
                way there would be enough housing to hold all the people, never mind
                the fact that many of the jobs are in the suburbs as well. You're
                assuming that everybody commutes to the "big city" to work. That
                isn't always the case.
                >
                > BTW, if roads were tolled you could eliminate other taxes.

                Yeah, you would eliminate a lot of driving. You would also eliminate
                people's ability to get to their jobs, schools, etc.

                >but do you honestly think it makes any
                > sense to drive a 4,000 pound SUV to return that 5 ounce video?
                > Really?

                No, of course it doesn't make sense to drive that way. No argument there.
              • Mike Doran
                ... and ... done ... Sadly, as Hubbert s peak digs in to this economy based on cheap fossil fuels and MASSIVE subsidies that encourages driving powered on that
                Message 7 of 19 , Nov 9, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > Without question the subsidy allows you to have the job you have
                  and
                  > > live where you live.
                  >
                  > And its a good thing too, or I would be unemployed. Been there,
                  done
                  > that, couldn't afford the t-shirt.
                  >

                  Sadly, as Hubbert's peak digs in to this economy based on cheap
                  fossil fuels and MASSIVE subsidies that encourages driving powered on
                  that cheap fuel, I don't think you or I understand the meaning of
                  unemployment.

                  >
                  > > Would
                  > > > you keep me from getting home to my wife?
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > That is an unfair question. The better question I will have you
                  > > answer. Do you think free food in the Soviet Union was a good
                  idea?
                  > >
                  >
                  > Uhhh, you lost me. What does that have to do with roads?
                  >

                  The free food socialism--or subsidy based farming, did not work.
                  Lines for food were long (gridlock) and soon the food was gone. A
                  black market evolved (pols on the dole from big oil like Bush for
                  wars for oil, more roads, etc). A lack of market leads to
                  corruption.

                  >
                  > > Because it comes from the subsidy with the cost of making it
                  worse
                  > > for those who do live in higher density areas. And it isn't
                  > > sustainable--indeed already the economy is feeling it and we
                  haven't
                  > > had the impact of Hubbert's peak or serious climate change from
                  our
                  > > activity . . . yet. And mostly because there IS a social cost to
                  > > road fascism.
                  >
                  > Well, I live in the largest city in my part of the state! It really
                  > isn't big enough to have suburbs, so I guess that's not a good
                  > example. So, let's take where I am working, which is in the
                  > Washington, DC area. There are definitely a LOT of suburbs here.
                  In
                  > fact, I stay in one suburb (Chantilly, VA), and work in another
                  > (Reston, VA). So what would you have us do? Every leave the suburb
                  > towns and move to DC proper? That would be impossible! There's no
                  > way there would be enough housing to hold all the people, never mind
                  > the fact that many of the jobs are in the suburbs as well. You're
                  > assuming that everybody commutes to the "big city" to work. That
                  > isn't always the case.

                  Certainly you have captured the reason the economy is now slowing.
                  We have reached the end of the subsidy in terms of wealth transfers
                  from high density areas to low. Look at it this way. In the Soviet
                  Union, there were probably some people who could not afford food. To
                  them, free food was good. And to the farmer who was paid to grow the
                  food for the government, that was work for them as well. But with
                  the whole market false, soon supply and demand was all messed up and
                  you had bread lines, shortages, cheaters on the supply side, and a
                  black market for farming, and inefficiecies growing the food for a
                  false market. With road fascism, we are starting to see that suburbs
                  are growing so fast that they lack infrastructure that towns have,
                  like sidewalks, water, fire, and even nearby healthcare. The suburbs
                  are starting to lack infrastucture AND, here is the most critical
                  point, what infrastructure they do have is based soley on the
                  assumption of cheap fossil fuels. The economic consequences are
                  frightening, because we now largely have a false market that faces
                  shortages on the assumptions upon which it is based. If any kind of
                  political or economy monopoly occurs with the supplying nations of
                  oil, it could get even worse.


                  > >
                  > > BTW, if roads were tolled you could eliminate other taxes.
                  >
                  > Yeah, you would eliminate a lot of driving. You would also
                  eliminate
                  > people's ability to get to their jobs, schools, etc.
                  >

                  See above. The question isn't whether this is a hard choice, but
                  whether to make the choice with planning and with time so that its
                  impace isn't devistating. Sometimes false market problems are solved
                  with more false markets. EG subsidizing the heck out of renewables.
                  But for the suburban power in governemnt to take the position that
                  they are the power that is against false markets, against the
                  government involved in their lives is a LIE--just like his daddy,
                  read my lips. Big lie. Effective lie, really. The roads ARE
                  government, its largest part. To not regulate them, incorporate them
                  in a regulated market economy is short sighted and wrong.

                  > >but do you honestly think it makes any
                  > > sense to drive a 4,000 pound SUV to return that 5 ounce video?
                  > > Really?
                  >
                  > No, of course it doesn't make sense to drive that way. No argument
                  there.

                  Tolls and other solutions to address the false market won't eliminate
                  all driving or cause job losses everywhere, but rather will prevent
                  this kind of madness and help us face the future shortages and market
                  as we near Hubbert's peak. To go the other way, as the Bush
                  administration is doing, to sell out to these special interests of
                  big oil, is to put the fire out with gasoline. Very scary.

                  BTW, Dave, don't take this personal. I think you are really cool.
                • David
                  ... Well, I think it depends on how well planned the suburbs are. Many of them do have the infrastructure you mention. Speaking of subsidies, how about the
                  Message 8 of 19 , Nov 11, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Certainly you have captured the reason the economy is now slowing.
                    > We have reached the end of the subsidy in terms of wealth transfers
                    > from high density areas to low. Look at it this way. In the Soviet
                    > Union, there were probably some people who could not afford food. To
                    > them, free food was good. And to the farmer who was paid to grow the
                    > food for the government, that was work for them as well. But with
                    > the whole market false, soon supply and demand was all messed up and
                    > you had bread lines, shortages, cheaters on the supply side, and a
                    > black market for farming, and inefficiecies growing the food for a
                    > false market. With road fascism, we are starting to see that suburbs
                    > are growing so fast that they lack infrastructure that towns have,
                    > like sidewalks, water, fire, and even nearby healthcare.

                    Well, I think it depends on how well planned the suburbs are. Many of
                    them do have the infrastructure you mention. Speaking of subsidies,
                    how about the ones that pay the farmers NOT to grow certain crops in
                    order to keep the prices artificially high?! ARGH!!

                    > The suburbs
                    > are starting to lack infrastucture AND, here is the most critical
                    > point, what infrastructure they do have is based soley on the
                    > assumption of cheap fossil fuels. The economic consequences are
                    > frightening, because we now largely have a false market that faces
                    > shortages on the assumptions upon which it is based. If any kind of
                    > political or economy monopoly occurs with the supplying nations of
                    > oil, it could get even worse.

                    I do agree with you here to a large extent. Part of the US interest
                    in the Middle East centers around oil. No doubt about that. We've
                    gotten ourselves into a position where we don't have a choice. Its
                    either keep that cheap oil coming in or risk economic collapse. The
                    sad thing is that the US has enough oil reserves to be self-sufficient
                    on oil if all oil-bearing regions were opened to exploration. We've
                    got a large number of capped-off oil wells, too. Its cheaper to
                    import oil than it is to pump our own out of the ground.

                    > Tolls and other solutions to address the false market won't eliminate
                    > all driving or cause job losses everywhere, but rather will prevent
                    > this kind of madness and help us face the future shortages and market
                    > as we near Hubbert's peak. To go the other way, as the Bush
                    > administration is doing, to sell out to these special interests of
                    > big oil, is to put the fire out with gasoline. Very scary.

                    I disagree. If you start putting tolls in the amount of thousands of
                    dollars per person per year on roads, it will have a devastating
                    effect. How can the average person even afford to get to work, let
                    alone anything else??

                    >
                    > BTW, Dave, don't take this personal. I think you are really cool.

                    Thanks! Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally!
                  • Mike Doran
                    The wealth transfers from rich to poor come directly BUSH-CHENEY: THE FIRST 20 MONTHS Inauguration Day Now Change Dow Jones 10.587 7.986 Down 32.5%
                    Message 9 of 19 , Nov 11, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The wealth transfers from rich to poor come directly

                      BUSH-CHENEY: THE FIRST 20 MONTHS
                      Inauguration Day Now Change
                      Dow Jones 10.587 7.986 Down 32.5%
                      Unemployment Rate 4.2 5.7 Up 36%
                      Budget $281b Surplus $157b Deficit Squandered
                      Jobs 111.7 million 109.6 million Loss of 2.1 Million

                      or indirectly through population density and the investment in roads.
                      The problem is we are reaching the point where even on cheap fuel the
                      economy can have sustained growth.

                      I am one who thinks our addiction to cheap oil with tolls over time
                      would NOT hurt the economy as much as you think but concentrate it
                      and change its character to infact make us LESS dependant on a
                      foriegn resource. A false market leads to a number of problems, the
                      least of which, as we discuss here, is changes to biological
                      feedbacks.

                      Speaking of which--check out this link:


                      http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/yesterday_prt.html

                      The severe weather matched the strike activity and really kicked in
                      as the front went above the Gaia active GOM. Now the strike activity
                      is along the Atlantic coast and I'll bet you are getting strikes.

                      Indeed, the solar activity matched well with that trough and the Gaia
                      conditions and the positive SOI . . .
                      --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > Certainly you have captured the reason the economy is now
                      slowing.
                      > > We have reached the end of the subsidy in terms of wealth
                      transfers
                      > > from high density areas to low. Look at it this way. In the
                      Soviet
                      > > Union, there were probably some people who could not afford
                      food. To
                      > > them, free food was good. And to the farmer who was paid to grow
                      the
                      > > food for the government, that was work for them as well. But
                      with
                      > > the whole market false, soon supply and demand was all messed up
                      and
                      > > you had bread lines, shortages, cheaters on the supply side, and
                      a
                      > > black market for farming, and inefficiecies growing the food for
                      a
                      > > false market. With road fascism, we are starting to see that
                      suburbs
                      > > are growing so fast that they lack infrastructure that towns
                      have,
                      > > like sidewalks, water, fire, and even nearby healthcare.
                      >
                      > Well, I think it depends on how well planned the suburbs are. Many
                      of
                      > them do have the infrastructure you mention. Speaking of subsidies,
                      > how about the ones that pay the farmers NOT to grow certain crops in
                      > order to keep the prices artificially high?! ARGH!!
                      >
                      > > The suburbs
                      > > are starting to lack infrastucture AND, here is the most critical
                      > > point, what infrastructure they do have is based soley on the
                      > > assumption of cheap fossil fuels. The economic consequences are
                      > > frightening, because we now largely have a false market that
                      faces
                      > > shortages on the assumptions upon which it is based. If any kind
                      of
                      > > political or economy monopoly occurs with the supplying nations
                      of
                      > > oil, it could get even worse.
                      >
                      > I do agree with you here to a large extent. Part of the US interest
                      > in the Middle East centers around oil. No doubt about that. We've
                      > gotten ourselves into a position where we don't have a choice. Its
                      > either keep that cheap oil coming in or risk economic collapse. The
                      > sad thing is that the US has enough oil reserves to be self-
                      sufficient
                      > on oil if all oil-bearing regions were opened to exploration. We've
                      > got a large number of capped-off oil wells, too. Its cheaper to
                      > import oil than it is to pump our own out of the ground.
                      >
                      > > Tolls and other solutions to address the false market won't
                      eliminate
                      > > all driving or cause job losses everywhere, but rather will
                      prevent
                      > > this kind of madness and help us face the future shortages and
                      market
                      > > as we near Hubbert's peak. To go the other way, as the Bush
                      > > administration is doing, to sell out to these special interests
                      of
                      > > big oil, is to put the fire out with gasoline. Very scary.
                      >
                      > I disagree. If you start putting tolls in the amount of thousands
                      of
                      > dollars per person per year on roads, it will have a devastating
                      > effect. How can the average person even afford to get to work, let
                      > alone anything else??
                      >
                      > >
                      > > BTW, Dave, don't take this personal. I think you are really cool.
                      >
                      > Thanks! Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally!
                    • David
                      ... And for this, please send your thank-you letter to Clinton/Gore. The recession (or whatever you want to call it) was already in full stride when Bush took
                      Message 10 of 19 , Nov 11, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
                        > The wealth transfers from rich to poor come directly
                        >
                        > BUSH-CHENEY: THE FIRST 20 MONTHS
                        > Inauguration Day Now Change
                        > Dow Jones 10.587 7.986 Down 32.5%
                        > Unemployment Rate 4.2 5.7 Up 36%
                        > Budget $281b Surplus $157b Deficit Squandered
                        > Jobs 111.7 million 109.6 million Loss of 2.1 Million

                        And for this, please send your thank-you letter to Clinton/Gore. The
                        recession (or whatever you want to call it) was already in full
                        stride when Bush took office. The "surplus" never existed anywhere
                        except on paper, and it was based on sustaining a certain economic
                        growth rate. Again, another wonderful Clinton/Gore trick.

                        > http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/yesterday_prt.html
                        >
                        > The severe weather matched the strike activity and really kicked in
                        > as the front went above the Gaia active GOM. Now the strike
                        activity
                        > is along the Atlantic coast and I'll bet you are getting strikes.
                        >
                        > Indeed, the solar activity matched well with that trough and the
                        Gaia
                        > conditions and the positive SOI . . .

                        If you mean by "strikes" severe weather, we sure got it. According
                        to CNN, more than 50 tornados touched down throughout the east. 35
                        killed, and a bunch more unaccounted for. Nasty.
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.