Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

According to macro economic trends forecaster Dr. Stephen Leeb we are at War over future energy demands with China and we are seriously losing the battle. While we've been spending trillions fighting the War on Terror and to preserve the flow of oil they have literally spent the same amount extracting rare earth minerals and developing solar and wind technologies.

Leeb discusses how "U.S. officials and politicians engage in short-term myopic planning, endless legal maneuvering, scandals, and wartime investing that are crippling America's economic viability." Contrast this with China's government, led by politicians with backgrounds in hard sciences. "China is spending enormous amounts of money planning for, and analyzing, the long-term consequences of global warming," Leeb asserts. "The Chinese, I don't think, hate Americans, by no means, but the Chinese are all for China. They would like to come off as the heroes in the environmental revolution."

Leeb views China's accumulation of rare earth assets as proof of the country's growing strength. "China almost has a hammerlock on two premier renewable energy markets - wind and solar," said Leeb. "Their control and refining of the heavy rare earth elements, which are essential for building magnets that go into wind turbines, hybrid automobiles and military equipment, clearly demonstrates China's ever-increasing lead in the global environmental revolution."

"You know, the benefit of this is just as in China: if we do wake up to this, we will create a number of very big growth industries in this country - huge growth industries with great jobs," Leeb concluded.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 03768.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Meh, that's for future generations to worry about.

Now pardon me while I get back to partying like it's 1999 with my Republican buddies.

kalm wrote:According to macro economic trends forecaster Dr. Stephen Leeb we are at War over future energy demands with China and we are seriously losing the battle. While we've been spending trillions fighting the War on Terror and to preserve the flow of oil they have literally spent the same amount extracting rare earth minerals and developing solar and wind technologies.

Leeb discusses how "U.S. officials and politicians engage in short-term myopic planning, endless legal maneuvering, scandals, and wartime investing that are crippling America's economic viability." Contrast this with China's government, led by politicians with backgrounds in hard sciences. "China is spending enormous amounts of money planning for, and analyzing, the long-term consequences of global warming," Leeb asserts. "The Chinese, I don't think, hate Americans, by no means, but the Chinese are all for China. They would like to come off as the heroes in the environmental revolution."

Leeb views China's accumulation of rare earth assets as proof of the country's growing strength. "China almost has a hammerlock on two premier renewable energy markets - wind and solar," said Leeb. "Their control and refining of the heavy rare earth elements, which are essential for building magnets that go into wind turbines, hybrid automobiles and military equipment, clearly demonstrates China's ever-increasing lead in the global environmental revolution."

"You know, the benefit of this is just as in China: if we do wake up to this, we will create a number of very big growth industries in this country - huge growth industries with great jobs," Leeb concluded.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 03768.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Those dirty, rotten, bat killers!!!

When you have a communist regime you don't have to put up with all the hippies, the NIMBY's, and the EPA with regard to oil pipelines, offshore drilling, and solar/wind farms. That's the one benefit of communism - you will it, and that shit gets done.

ASUG8 wrote:When you have a communist regime you don't have to put up with all the hippies, the NIMBY's, and the EPA with regard to oil pipelines, offshore drilling, and solar/wind farms. That's the one benefit of communism - you will it, and that shit gets done.

True.

ASUG8 wrote:When you have a communist regime you don't have to put up with all the hippies, the NIMBY's, and the EPA with regard to oil pipelines, offshore drilling, and solar/wind farms. That's the one benefit of communism - you will it, and that shit gets done.

That sort of thing used to happen here.....but that was when we had real leaders.

93henfan wrote:Meh, that's for future generations to worry about.

Now pardon me while I get back to partying like it's 1999 with my Republican buddies.

93henfan wrote:Meh, that's for future generations to worry about.

Now pardon me while I get back to partying like it's 1999 with my Republican buddies.

Says the man who's feeding from the Federal trough...

Rob Iola wrote:

93henfan wrote:Meh, that's for future generations to worry about.

Now pardon me while I get back to partying like it's 1999 with my Republican buddies.

Says the man who's feeding from the Federal trough...

Personal foul, Rob Iola. Sidebarring. Fifteen yard penalty. Automatic first down.


Hey, I may still get up to that game tomorrow night. Wanna ride?

Wait a minute, drill baby drill isn't working??

If we're losing the war how can Exxon Mobil's profit be up 41%?

Our politicians are the ones losing the war and their "bought" constituency's addiction to oil companies.

93henfan wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:When you have a communist regime you don't have to put up with all the hippies, the NIMBY's, and the EPA with regard to oil pipelines, offshore drilling, and solar/wind farms. That's the one benefit of communism - you will it, and that shit gets done.

True.

Well, we fight ACTUAL wars with one or both hands tied behind our backs...might as well fight the economic wars the same way, no?

AZGrizFan wrote:

93henfan wrote:
True.

Well, we fight ACTUAL wars with one or both hands tied behind our backs...might as well fight the economic wars the same way, no?

Yeah, let's just model ourselves after the Chinese, and destroy all the natural beauty in our country in the name of economic progress. Brilliant.

93henfan wrote:

Rob Iola wrote: Says the man who's feeding from the Federal trough...

Personal foul, Rob Iola. Sidebarring. Fifteen yard penalty. Automatic first down.


Hey, I may still get up to that game tomorrow night. Wanna ride?

I've seen your hoopty - ya really trust it in tomorrow's blizzard? Seriously though, after the "$30 buys you an entire section of daU" deal fell thru (thanks Andy!) I wrote off tomorrow's game. That, and Delaware deciding to stop blocking, tackling, catching, coaching, competing...

bluehenbillk wrote:Wait a minute, drill baby drill isn't working??

If we're losing the war how can Exxon Mobil's profit be up 41%?

Our politicians are the ones losing the war and their "bought" constituency's addiction to oil companies.

We haven't even started from what I can tell. Everyone that thinks we shouldn't drill in ANWR should spend a year up there and report back at that time. I am betting their opinion would change. I've been there, looks like the perfect place to drill to me.

Ugh, how many articles do we need about the need for government to pick which industries are the right ones to support? How about we just create the playing field and let everyone else pick out what to support by buying, using, or investing in whatever they want to buy, use, or invest in?

Wind and solar are neat and interesting technologies. And for the next generation or two, will be neat little hobby industries that will provide a small amount of total power and energy to the world. China needs to look for any and all energy sources in order to keep growing, especially as it is now becoming more costly to manufacture in China (hence the fact that some companies are looking elsewhere to make things). Of course, that's why in the article it also mentions that in addition to trying to corner the market in rare earth metals, China is also looking to buy up coal and oil as well. And I'm sure they'd like to find some big caches of natural gas just like we're finding in the US now as well as the UK. There is no guarantee that wind and solar will ever become "the" source of energy for this planet, especially in the case of wind. And there's no guarantee that they will ever be cost competitive with all the other sources of energy out there, those discovered/known today as well as those not yet developed or known.

I'm all for government investment into society to help it grow and develop. But rather than making very specific bets like we have done over the past few decades - picking this particular company or this particular industry, let's get better about investing in the fundamentals. If we want to do that, why don't we tailor student loans to favor students who major in technical fields (science, engineering, etc)? Sink more money into basic research and let the interests and desires of the researches and market decide which direction that will turn us to. Use money to help shape the immigration policy so that we bring in many more people than we do today, but legally and targetted (i.e. bring in well educated people). When you start picking particular industries or championing specific companies, that's where things start to go off the rails and you end up creating waste.

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:We haven't even started from what I can tell.

No we have started. Unfortunately it is in Brazil. And after we support their drilling with our tax dollars we will use our after tax income to purchase the oil that they find. Sounds like a plan to me.

http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu ... zilian-oil" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Well, we fight ACTUAL wars with one or both hands tied behind our backs...might as well fight the economic wars the same way, no?

Yeah, let's just model ourselves after the Chinese, and destroy all the natural beauty in our country in the name of economic progress. Brilliant.

Yep. That's EXACTLY what I said, Einstein.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Yeah, let's just model ourselves after the Chinese, and destroy all the natural beauty in our country in the name of economic progress. Brilliant.

Yep. That's EXACTLY what I said, Einstein.

You're saying we should play by the same rules as the Chinese, right?

GannonFan wrote:Ugh, how many articles do we need about the need for government to pick which industries are the right ones to support? How about we just create the playing field and let everyone else pick out what to support by buying, using, or investing in whatever they want to buy, use, or invest in?

Wind and solar are neat and interesting technologies. And for the next generation or two, will be neat little hobby industries that will provide a small amount of total power and energy to the world. China needs to look for any and all energy sources in order to keep growing, especially as it is now becoming more costly to manufacture in China (hence the fact that some companies are looking elsewhere to make things). Of course, that's why in the article it also mentions that in addition to trying to corner the market in rare earth metals, China is also looking to buy up coal and oil as well. And I'm sure they'd like to find some big caches of natural gas just like we're finding in the US now as well as the UK. There is no guarantee that wind and solar will ever become "the" source of energy for this planet, especially in the case of wind. And there's no guarantee that they will ever be cost competitive with all the other sources of energy out there, those discovered/known today as well as those not yet developed or known.

I'm all for government investment into society to help it grow and develop. But rather than making very specific bets like we have done over the past few decades - picking this particular company or this particular industry, let's get better about investing in the fundamentals. If we want to do that, why don't we tailor student loans to favor students who major in technical fields (science, engineering, etc)? Sink more money into basic research and let the interests and desires of the researches and market decide which direction that will turn us to. Use money to help shape the immigration policy so that we bring in many more people than we do today, but legally and targetted (i.e. bring in well educated people). When you start picking particular industries or championing specific companies, that's where things start to go off the rails and you end up creating waste.

Do you think we haven't been picking winners and losers all along? Once an industry like big oil gets established partly due to externalizing costs like roads, environmental damage, land, healthcare etc. they can pretty much afford to control the market, and minimize competing energy sources. I thought you liked competition and the free market?

The free market is a good thing. We do not have a free market when people who lose in the free market are given money to keep making the same mistakes. In fact, this encourages sloppy capitalism. We should be marching on Washington Avenue not Wall Street. You can also march on the steps of Madoff or any other Ponzi schemer, robbing people and stealing their retirement money. Why we do not have the death penalty for crimes of this sort is unknown.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Well, we fight ACTUAL wars with one or both hands tied behind our backs...might as well fight the economic wars the same way, no?

Yeah, let's just model ourselves after the Chinese, and destroy all the natural beauty in our country in the name of economic progress. Brilliant.

You forgot the end game...

China ruins their own country.

We keep ours nice and clean.

China comes and takes our country and deports those of us who are still alive to Tibet.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Ugh, how many articles do we need about the need for government to pick which industries are the right ones to support? How about we just create the playing field and let everyone else pick out what to support by buying, using, or investing in whatever they want to buy, use, or invest in?

Wind and solar are neat and interesting technologies. And for the next generation or two, will be neat little hobby industries that will provide a small amount of total power and energy to the world. China needs to look for any and all energy sources in order to keep growing, especially as it is now becoming more costly to manufacture in China (hence the fact that some companies are looking elsewhere to make things). Of course, that's why in the article it also mentions that in addition to trying to corner the market in rare earth metals, China is also looking to buy up coal and oil as well. And I'm sure they'd like to find some big caches of natural gas just like we're finding in the US now as well as the UK. There is no guarantee that wind and solar will ever become "the" source of energy for this planet, especially in the case of wind. And there's no guarantee that they will ever be cost competitive with all the other sources of energy out there, those discovered/known today as well as those not yet developed or known.

I'm all for government investment into society to help it grow and develop. But rather than making very specific bets like we have done over the past few decades - picking this particular company or this particular industry, let's get better about investing in the fundamentals. If we want to do that, why don't we tailor student loans to favor students who major in technical fields (science, engineering, etc)? Sink more money into basic research and let the interests and desires of the researches and market decide which direction that will turn us to. Use money to help shape the immigration policy so that we bring in many more people than we do today, but legally and targetted (i.e. bring in well educated people). When you start picking particular industries or championing specific companies, that's where things start to go off the rails and you end up creating waste.

Do you think we haven't been picking winners and losers all along? Once an industry like big oil gets established partly due to externalizing costs like roads, environmental damage, land, healthcare etc. they can pretty much afford to control the market, and minimize competing energy sources. I thought you liked competition and the free market?

Come on, that's weak - you can do better than that. You're really going to say that Big Oil has been unfairly favored by the government and chosen as a winning industry because they've been allow to externalize costs like roads and healthcare and anything else in your etc? Which industries haven't been favored by externalizing costs like roads and healthcare and other things as basic as those?

My point, which you have done well to demonstrate, although unwittingly, is that government should fund things like that - basic necessities that don't singularly favor one or a group of industries but rather most or all of them. You don't favor or make it possible for something like Big Oil to occur just because you fund a national road system. You make it possible for something like Big Oil to happen because you decide that it's in the national best interest for something like Big Oil to happen and you craft laws and spending specifically to protect them and support them. And yes, we have been picking winners and losers before and we continue to do that - and that is the problem. The same roads that benefit Big Oil benefit wind and solar and every other industry that needs to receive or ship raw materials or finished goods. Let's get back to stuff like that and stop picking specific industries or companies to favor.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Yep. That's EXACTLY what I said, Einstein.

You're saying we should play by the same rules as the Chinese, right?

I'm saying that we shouldn't be surprised we're losing the economic war to China given the set of constraints we operate under.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Do you think we haven't been picking winners and losers all along? Once an industry like big oil gets established partly due to externalizing costs like roads, environmental damage, land, healthcare etc. they can pretty much afford to control the market, and minimize competing energy sources. I thought you liked competition and the free market?

Come on, that's weak - you can do better than that. You're really going to say that Big Oil has been unfairly favored by the government and chosen as a winning industry because they've been allow to externalize costs like roads and healthcare and anything else in your etc? Which industries haven't been favored by externalizing costs like roads and healthcare and other things as basic as those?

My point, which you have done well to demonstrate, although unwittingly, is that government should fund things like that - basic necessities that don't singularly favor one or a group of industries but rather most or all of them. You don't favor or make it possible for something like Big Oil to occur just because you fund a national road system. You make it possible for something like Big Oil to happen because you decide that it's in the national best interest for something like Big Oil to happen and you craft laws and spending specifically to protect them and support them. And yes, we have been picking winners and losers before and we continue to do that - and that is the problem. The same roads that benefit Big Oil benefit wind and solar and every other industry that needs to receive or ship raw materials or finished goods. Let's get back to stuff like that and stop picking specific industries or companies to favor.

So you begrudgingly agree that we pick winners. You just happen to be a fan of oil and the wars and subsidies that support it versus the national interest of pursuing sustainable and all of it's benefits.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Come on, that's weak - you can do better than that. You're really going to say that Big Oil has been unfairly favored by the government and chosen as a winning industry because they've been allow to externalize costs like roads and healthcare and anything else in your etc? Which industries haven't been favored by externalizing costs like roads and healthcare and other things as basic as those?

My point, which you have done well to demonstrate, although unwittingly, is that government should fund things like that - basic necessities that don't singularly favor one or a group of industries but rather most or all of them. You don't favor or make it possible for something like Big Oil to occur just because you fund a national road system. You make it possible for something like Big Oil to happen because you decide that it's in the national best interest for something like Big Oil to happen and you craft laws and spending specifically to protect them and support them. And yes, we have been picking winners and losers before and we continue to do that - and that is the problem. The same roads that benefit Big Oil benefit wind and solar and every other industry that needs to receive or ship raw materials or finished goods. Let's get back to stuff like that and stop picking specific industries or companies to favor.

So you begrudgingly agree that we pick winners. You just happen to be a fan of oil and the wars and subsidies that support it versus the national interest of pursuing sustainable and all of it's benefits.

Benefits? Are you kidding? We would lose hundreds of billions in weapons sales alone.