FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=40429
Man, if THAT isn't putting lipstick on a pig.“The U.S. increase in supply is a very meaningful chunk of oil,” Francisco Blanch, [Bank of America Corp.'s] head of commodities research, said by phone from New York. “The shale boom is playing a key role in the U.S. recovery. If the U.S. didn’t have this energy supply, prices at the pump would be completely unaffordable.”
As well as being completely false...AZGrizFan wrote:Man, if THAT isn't putting lipstick on a pig.“The U.S. increase in supply is a very meaningful chunk of oil,” Francisco Blanch, [Bank of America Corp.'s] head of commodities research, said by phone from New York. “The shale boom is playing a key role in the U.S. recovery. If the U.S. didn’t have this energy supply, prices at the pump would be completely unaffordable.”
GannonFan wrote:Fracking.
And I'm perfectly fine with that. Innovation is the cure for anything wrong with the economy and the way to stay ahead of the rest of the world. Government policies, overall politics, etc, are just side shows - innovation is where it's at.Bison Fan in NW MN wrote:GannonFan wrote:Fracking.
Technology and innovation at work...
Agree in general. Now, let's level the playing field between fossil fuels and renewables. Government picking winners and losers stifles innovation.GannonFan wrote:And I'm perfectly fine with that. Innovation is the cure for anything wrong with the economy and the way to stay ahead of the rest of the world. Government policies, overall politics, etc, are just side shows - innovation is where it's at.Bison Fan in NW MN wrote:
Technology and innovation at work...
kalm wrote:Agree in general. Now, let's level the playing field between fossil fuels and renewables. Government picking winners and losers stifles innovation.GannonFan wrote:
And I'm perfectly fine with that. Innovation is the cure for anything wrong with the economy and the way to stay ahead of the rest of the world. Government policies, overall politics, etc, are just side shows - innovation is where it's at.
It's interesting that some left-wingers (not saying this includes you) on the one hand are saying that ending oil subsidies will have a negligible effect on gas prices but on the other hand complain about government distorting the market.kalm wrote:Agree in general. Now, let's level the playing field between fossil fuels and renewables. Government picking winners and losers stifles innovation.GannonFan wrote:
And I'm perfectly fine with that. Innovation is the cure for anything wrong with the economy and the way to stay ahead of the rest of the world. Government policies, overall politics, etc, are just side shows - innovation is where it's at.
Super idea. So what needs to be done to make it perfectly level, since you are implying that renewables can't compete with fossil fuels since government favors fossil fuels with their subsidies and/or favorable taxes?kalm wrote:Agree in general. Now, let's level the playing field between fossil fuels and renewables. Government picking winners and losers stifles innovation.GannonFan wrote:
And I'm perfectly fine with that. Innovation is the cure for anything wrong with the economy and the way to stay ahead of the rest of the world. Government policies, overall politics, etc, are just side shows - innovation is where it's at.
WalMart didn't have a "level playing field" when it went against KMart and Sears years ago, neither did Apple when it went against Microsoft, nor did Microsoft when it went against IBM, etc. etc. etc.GannonFan wrote:Super idea. So what needs to be done to make it perfectly level, since you are implying that renewables can't compete with fossil fuels since government favors fossil fuels with their subsidies and/or favorable taxes?kalm wrote:
Agree in general. Now, let's level the playing field between fossil fuels and renewables. Government picking winners and losers stifles innovation.
Oh, I agree. When they start including as "subsidies" the ability to depreciate a capital asset over several years, like everyone else can do, that's where things get "iffy" in terms of exactly what kind of breaks they are getting. In then end, though, you're right - if it's a better product and they can make that product (in this case renewables) then it would work and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that fossil fuels remain the predominate energy source in use isn't because of some nefarious plot at the highest levels of government and business, it's just because it's flat out cheaper and easier to use right now. If the greens hadn't had been so hyper about stopping nuclear power we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels today, but such are the outcomes when passions rule and not science. But I'll still let kalm try to tell us how all of this could happen. I'm sure something about our military spending will be thrown in there as well.Baldy wrote:WalMart didn't have a "level playing field" when it went against KMart and Sears years ago, neither did Apple when it went against Microsoft, nor did Microsoft when it went against IBM, etc. etc. etc.GannonFan wrote:
Super idea. So what needs to be done to make it perfectly level, since you are implying that renewables can't compete with fossil fuels since government favors fossil fuels with their subsidies and/or favorable taxes?
All of those (and many more) equaled or beat their better financed competition by having a better business model and/or product, and formulating a way to succeed.
kalm's implication that renewables can't compete with fossil fuels is just standard Donk boilerplate talking point victimization. "Big Oil" doesn't receive any more of an incentive than any other corporation (unless you call the expensing of ordinary business expenses for oil companies a subsidy), but it does sound good to the dumb masses and it makes for good campaign rhetoric.
Also Reagan.GannonFan wrote:Oh, I agree. When they start including as "subsidies" the ability to depreciate a capital asset over several years, like everyone else can do, that's where things get "iffy" in terms of exactly what kind of breaks they are getting. In then end, though, you're right - if it's a better product and they can make that product (in this case renewables) then it would work and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that fossil fuels remain the predominate energy source in use isn't because of some nefarious plot at the highest levels of government and business, it's just because it's flat out cheaper and easier to use right now. If the greens hadn't had been so hyper about stopping nuclear power we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels today, but such are the outcomes when passions rule and not science. But I'll still let kalm try to tell us how all of this could happen. I'm sure something about our military spending will be thrown in there as well.Baldy wrote: WalMart didn't have a "level playing field" when it went against KMart and Sears years ago, neither did Apple when it went against Microsoft, nor did Microsoft when it went against IBM, etc. etc. etc.
All of those (and many more) equaled or beat their better financed competition by having a better business model and/or product, and formulating a way to succeed.
kalm's implication that renewables can't compete with fossil fuels is just standard Donk boilerplate talking point victimization. "Big Oil" doesn't receive any more of an incentive than any other corporation (unless you call the expensing of ordinary business expenses for oil companies a subsidy), but it does sound good to the dumb masses and it makes for good campaign rhetoric.
You're both making solid counter points. I wish I could introduce you two to my conk friend who owns a gas station. He's a very smart and successful small business owner who has Sean Hannity playing on the radio in his store, and an open bible on his desk which he reads from constantly. He makes BDK sound like me and Chizzy.GannonFan wrote:Oh, I agree. When they start including as "subsidies" the ability to depreciate a capital asset over several years, like everyone else can do, that's where things get "iffy" in terms of exactly what kind of breaks they are getting. In then end, though, you're right - if it's a better product and they can make that product (in this case renewables) then it would work and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that fossil fuels remain the predominate energy source in use isn't because of some nefarious plot at the highest levels of government and business, it's just because it's flat out cheaper and easier to use right now. If the greens hadn't had been so hyper about stopping nuclear power we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels today, but such are the outcomes when passions rule and not science. But I'll still let kalm try to tell us how all of this could happen. I'm sure something about our military spending will be thrown in there as well.Baldy wrote: WalMart didn't have a "level playing field" when it went against KMart and Sears years ago, neither did Apple when it went against Microsoft, nor did Microsoft when it went against IBM, etc. etc. etc.
All of those (and many more) equaled or beat their better financed competition by having a better business model and/or product, and formulating a way to succeed.
kalm's implication that renewables can't compete with fossil fuels is just standard Donk boilerplate talking point victimization. "Big Oil" doesn't receive any more of an incentive than any other corporation (unless you call the expensing of ordinary business expenses for oil companies a subsidy), but it does sound good to the dumb masses and it makes for good campaign rhetoric.
Wal-Mart and big oil ARE America... its what we want and who we are (don't be a hater bro)kalm wrote:You're both making solid counter points. I wish I could introduce you two to my conk friend who owns a gas station. He's a very smart and successful small business owner who has Sean Hannity playing on the radio in his store, and an open bible on his desk which he reads from constantly. He makes BDK sound like me and Chizzy.GannonFan wrote:
Oh, I agree. When they start including as "subsidies" the ability to depreciate a capital asset over several years, like everyone else can do, that's where things get "iffy" in terms of exactly what kind of breaks they are getting. In then end, though, you're right - if it's a better product and they can make that product (in this case renewables) then it would work and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that fossil fuels remain the predominate energy source in use isn't because of some nefarious plot at the highest levels of government and business, it's just because it's flat out cheaper and easier to use right now. If the greens hadn't had been so hyper about stopping nuclear power we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels today, but such are the outcomes when passions rule and not science. But I'll still let kalm try to tell us how all of this could happen. I'm sure something about our military spending will be thrown in there as well.
Despite all of that he will emphatically tell you that Walmart and big oil have been horrible for America.
Something about stifling competition while manipulating government...
So does your friend have answers then on how renewables are screwed by the government and only if we got government out of the way renewables would flourish and steer us away from fossil fuels? Can he post here?kalm wrote:You're both making solid counter points. I wish I could introduce you two to my conk friend who owns a gas station. He's a very smart and successful small business owner who has Sean Hannity playing on the radio in his store, and an open bible on his desk which he reads from constantly. He makes BDK sound like me and Chizzy.GannonFan wrote:
Oh, I agree. When they start including as "subsidies" the ability to depreciate a capital asset over several years, like everyone else can do, that's where things get "iffy" in terms of exactly what kind of breaks they are getting. In then end, though, you're right - if it's a better product and they can make that product (in this case renewables) then it would work and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that fossil fuels remain the predominate energy source in use isn't because of some nefarious plot at the highest levels of government and business, it's just because it's flat out cheaper and easier to use right now. If the greens hadn't had been so hyper about stopping nuclear power we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels today, but such are the outcomes when passions rule and not science. But I'll still let kalm try to tell us how all of this could happen. I'm sure something about our military spending will be thrown in there as well.
Despite all of that he will emphatically tell you that Walmart and big oil have been horrible for America.
Something about stifling competition while manipulating government...
Aaaaand Klam trots out the old "I have a black friend who sez...." trickkalm wrote:You're both making solid counter points. I wish I could introduce you two to my conk friend who owns a gas station. He's a very smart and successful small business owner who has Sean Hannity playing on the radio in his store, and an open bible on his desk which he reads from constantly. He makes BDK sound like me and Chizzy.GannonFan wrote:
Oh, I agree. When they start including as "subsidies" the ability to depreciate a capital asset over several years, like everyone else can do, that's where things get "iffy" in terms of exactly what kind of breaks they are getting. In then end, though, you're right - if it's a better product and they can make that product (in this case renewables) then it would work and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that fossil fuels remain the predominate energy source in use isn't because of some nefarious plot at the highest levels of government and business, it's just because it's flat out cheaper and easier to use right now. If the greens hadn't had been so hyper about stopping nuclear power we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels today, but such are the outcomes when passions rule and not science. But I'll still let kalm try to tell us how all of this could happen. I'm sure something about our military spending will be thrown in there as well.
Despite all of that he will emphatically tell you that Walmart and big oil have been horrible for America.
Something about stifling competition while manipulating government...
Maybe if the industry had been a bit smarter about things like siting a nuke plant on an earthquake fault and trying to build one from plans drawn backwards they (the tree-huggers, (as if their opinion mattered)) wouldn't have been. And Fukushima of course was an anomaly.GannonFan wrote:Oh, I agree. When they start including as "subsidies" the ability to depreciate a capital asset over several years, like everyone else can do, that's where things get "iffy" in terms of exactly what kind of breaks they are getting. In then end, though, you're right - if it's a better product and they can make that product (in this case renewables) then it would work and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that fossil fuels remain the predominate energy source in use isn't because of some nefarious plot at the highest levels of government and business, it's just because it's flat out cheaper and easier to use right now. If the greens hadn't had been so hyper about stopping nuclear power we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels today, but such are the outcomes when passions rule and not science. But I'll still let kalm try to tell us how all of this could happen. I'm sure something about our military spending will be thrown in there as well.Baldy wrote: WalMart didn't have a "level playing field" when it went against KMart and Sears years ago, neither did Apple when it went against Microsoft, nor did Microsoft when it went against IBM, etc. etc. etc.
All of those (and many more) equaled or beat their better financed competition by having a better business model and/or product, and formulating a way to succeed.
kalm's implication that renewables can't compete with fossil fuels is just standard Donk boilerplate talking point victimization. "Big Oil" doesn't receive any more of an incentive than any other corporation (unless you call the expensing of ordinary business expenses for oil companies a subsidy), but it does sound good to the dumb masses and it makes for good campaign rhetoric.
At the moment, our government's most significant renewable regulatory role is blocking China from dumping cheap green products. You could argue regulatory control inflates U.S. manufacturing cost (chicken or egg), but if trade blocks were dropped, most American residential would have online solar within a decade.GannonFan wrote:So does your friend have answers then on how renewables are screwed by the government and only if we got government out of the way renewables would flourish and steer us away from fossil fuels? Can he post here?kalm wrote:
You're both making solid counter points. I wish I could introduce you two to my conk friend who owns a gas station. He's a very smart and successful small business owner who has Sean Hannity playing on the radio in his store, and an open bible on his desk which he reads from constantly. He makes BDK sound like me and Chizzy.
Despite all of that he will emphatically tell you that Walmart and big oil have been horrible for America.
Something about stifling competition while manipulating government...
Utilities are spending serious millions to buy legislation that inhibits roof top solar. In Florida it is now illegal to be off the grid.travelinman67 wrote:At the moment, our government's most significant renewable regulatory role is blocking China from dumping cheap green products. You could argue regulatory control inflates U.S. manufacturing cost (chicken or egg), but if trade blocks were dropped, most American residential would have online solar within a decade.GannonFan wrote:
So does your friend have answers then on how renewables are screwed by the government and only if we got government out of the way renewables would flourish and steer us away from fossil fuels? Can he post here?
He's a Conk, so what does he know?kalm wrote:You're both making solid counter points. I wish I could introduce you two to my conk friend who owns a gas station. He's a very smart and successful small business owner who has Sean Hannity playing on the radio in his store, and an open bible on his desk which he reads from constantly. He makes BDK sound like me and Chizzy.GannonFan wrote:
Oh, I agree. When they start including as "subsidies" the ability to depreciate a capital asset over several years, like everyone else can do, that's where things get "iffy" in terms of exactly what kind of breaks they are getting. In then end, though, you're right - if it's a better product and they can make that product (in this case renewables) then it would work and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that fossil fuels remain the predominate energy source in use isn't because of some nefarious plot at the highest levels of government and business, it's just because it's flat out cheaper and easier to use right now. If the greens hadn't had been so hyper about stopping nuclear power we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels today, but such are the outcomes when passions rule and not science. But I'll still let kalm try to tell us how all of this could happen. I'm sure something about our military spending will be thrown in there as well.
Despite all of that he will emphatically tell you that Walmart and big oil have been horrible for America.
Something about stifling competition while manipulating government...
Actually, the biggest flaw in nuke power is a matter of scale and size.houndawg wrote:Maybe if the industry had been a bit smarter about things like siting a nuke plant on an earthquake fault and trying to build one from plans drawn backwards they (the tree-huggers, (as if their opinion mattered)) wouldn't have been. And Fukushima of course was an anomaly.GannonFan wrote:
Oh, I agree. When they start including as "subsidies" the ability to depreciate a capital asset over several years, like everyone else can do, that's where things get "iffy" in terms of exactly what kind of breaks they are getting. In then end, though, you're right - if it's a better product and they can make that product (in this case renewables) then it would work and we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact that fossil fuels remain the predominate energy source in use isn't because of some nefarious plot at the highest levels of government and business, it's just because it's flat out cheaper and easier to use right now. If the greens hadn't had been so hyper about stopping nuclear power we'd be using a lot less fossil fuels today, but such are the outcomes when passions rule and not science. But I'll still let kalm try to tell us how all of this could happen. I'm sure something about our military spending will be thrown in there as well.
CID1990 wrote:Actually, the biggest flaw in nuke power is a matter of scale and size.houndawg wrote:
Maybe if the industry had been a bit smarter about things like siting a nuke plant on an earthquake fault and trying to build one from plans drawn backwards they (the tree-huggers, (as if their opinion mattered)) wouldn't have been. And Fukushima of course was an anomaly.
The greens are going to raise hell about it no matter what.
It is security-minded government regulation that makes it so that nuke plants are MASSIVE (easier to keep tabs on your nuke fuel when it is all in one big pile, instead of 20 smaller more spread-out piles) and therefore more suceptible to massive accidents and natural disasters.
We have the ability to do it right, and the technology is plug-n-play
but dont fool yourself into thinking that there is any situation where the greens wont raise hell
Probably do, but the first time they can save money by cutting corners with respect to safety, they will. For me the biggest problem is the handing down of the spent fuel mess to literally hundreds of generations.CID1990 wrote:Actually, the biggest flaw in nuke power is a matter of scale and size.houndawg wrote:
Maybe if the industry had been a bit smarter about things like siting a nuke plant on an earthquake fault and trying to build one from plans drawn backwards they (the tree-huggers, (as if their opinion mattered)) wouldn't have been. And Fukushima of course was an anomaly.
The greens are going to raise hell about it no matter what.
It is security-minded government regulation that makes it so that nuke plants are MASSIVE (easier to keep tabs on your nuke fuel when it is all in one big pile, instead of 20 smaller more spread-out piles) and therefore more suceptible to massive accidents and natural disasters.
We have the ability to do it right, and the technology is plug-n-play
but dont fool yourself into thinking that there is any situation where the greens wont raise hell