"The private sector is doing fine."

[RandFan]

Isn't Romney basically Obama... with less character?

I see no character in Romney. Obama has stood up on principle on a number of important issues so while I think he is head shoulders above Romney I think he deserves criticism.

Would there really be any big difference if Romney was elected? I mean Obama dived to the center... Romney was always there and is just trying to play to the Republican base. I really don't see any major difference in how they will operate. Hopefully Romney loses so Chris Christie can run in 2016.... if he doesn't die of a massive heart attack.

I voted for Bush twice. Now, that he was president wasn't my fault. I'm not quite that vain arrogant. However I do very much regret it. The ideological bent of SCOTUS has become quite worrisome. If for no other reason than that, and I do have other reasons, I very much fear a Romney presidency. And I've little to be impressed about when it comes to Christie.

 

[AlBell]

A good example of how modern economics ignores externalities. At the moment, it is environment that pays for everything.

Without electricity in the grid, environment kills people starting with the old and infirm who can't afford to turn on AC or heat, followed in short order by epidemics which kill nearly all.

 

[AlBell]

BTW, Dow is now UP for the year.

Damn shame stock prices are not the economy.

 

[RandFan]

Damn shame stock prices are not the economy.

They are a metric as to how part of the economy is doing and are reflection of the overall economy. Stock prices tend to do poorly if the economy is on a downward trend.

 

[elbe]

Without electricity in the grid, environment kills people starting with the old and infirm who can't afford to turn on AC or heat, followed in short order by epidemics which kill nearly all.

...That is... odd. I'm pretty sure humans lived and thrived before the invention of AC or electric heating. We've even successfully survived many diseases without it killing off "nearly all". I guess you could try to argue that we've "lost" those skills through lack of practice, but people in africa seem to be doing it still and that's a much harsher climate than the US.

 

[Ziggurat]

...That is... odd. I'm pretty sure humans lived and thrived before the invention of AC or electric heating. We've even successfully survived many diseases without it killing off "nearly all". I guess you could try to argue that we've "lost" those skills through lack of practice, but people in africa seem to be doing it still and that's a much harsher climate than the US.

Africa is far more disease-prone than the US. But cold kills more easily than heat, and the US gets a lot colder than Africa. Al's post was definitely hyperbole, but a lack of artificial temperature control does kill people. Even in first-world countries.

 

[DavidJames]

They are a metric as to how part of the economy is doing and are reflection of the overall economy. Stock prices tend to do poorly if the economy is on a downward trend.

Market's up, profits up, investments up. Jobs aren't up as much. Business are doing reasonably well but they aren't hiring. What person with functioning brain thinks that's the presidents fault.

 

[maxpower1227]

Yawn. Re the words I bolded, I'll go with null hypothesis too. Got any actual facts instead of "maybes/mights/OMGs!"? You are in Rachel Carlson territory, who imo appears responsible for untold third world deaths due to mosquito bites by the DDT use ban. Lefties don't seem to worry about those uninitended consequences of their recommendations.

I don't want to derail too much (maybe this could be split to a different thread), but I had to take issue with the regurgitation of this particularly insidious bit of right-wing propaganda/character assassination. Rachel Carson was right about DDT, and is not responsible for its failure in some sub-Saharan African and other third world countries. DDT was only banned for use in the United States; American companies were never even banned from producing it for use in other nations. Its failure to completely eradicate malaria is due to other factors. Please, stop parroting this corporatist anti-regulation propaganda.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Fracking is in it's infancy

No. Not unless you think 65 year old technology and techniques qualify as infancy. Hydraulic fracturing (Fracking) might not have been commonly used because the associated costs were higher than the price per barrel (or cubic feet for gas) but the technology is decidedly not in its infancy.

 

[elbe]

Africa is far more disease-prone than the US. But cold kills more easily than heat, and the US gets a lot colder than Africa. Al's post was definitely hyperbole, but a lack of artificial temperature control does kill people. Even in first-world countries.

I didn't say temperatures don't kill people, but he was making it seem like humanity would quickly go extinct without electricity. Context matters.

And humans have also long figured out how to deal with cold climates as well without electricity.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't say temperatures don't kill people, but he was making it seem like humanity would quickly go extinct without electricity. Context matters.

Like I said, his post was hyperbole. Humanity itself isn't on the line, but people's lives actually are.

And humans have also long figured out how to deal with cold climates as well without electricity.

Sure, absolutely. With much shorter life spans, though.

 

[elbe]

Like I said, his post was hyperbole. Humanity itself isn't on the line, but people's lives actually are.

I'm not entirely confident that Albell knows how to use hyperbole. His posting history leads me to suspect that he believed what he wrote.

Sure, absolutely. With much shorter life spans, though.

Significantly? I doubt it. The history of indoor heating is rather long and easily predates electric heating. I'd think that the expanded lifespans have more to do with modern healthcare than modern heaters.

I'm not saying that the sudden loss of electricity wouldn't be shattering to a great deal of people, but it's not something that I think humans couldn't, relatively easily, adapt to as a species.

 

[RandFan]

No. Not unless you think 65 year old technology and techniques qualify as infancy.

Yes. Of course it is. I could have said relatively and we can debate that if you like but I doubt it is necessary.

Hydraulic fracturing (Fracking) might not have been commonly used because the associated costs were higher than the price per barrel (or cubic feet for gas) but the technology is decidedly not in its infancy.

And that's the point. The hours of drilling are a tiny fraction of a fraction of all other drilling. Yes, it most definitely is, relatively speaking, in its infancy.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Yes. Of course it is. I could have said relatively and we can debate that if you like but I doubt it is necessary.

And that's the point. The hours of drilling are a tiny fraction of a fraction of all other drilling. Yes, it most definitely is, relatively speaking, in its infancy.

Calling a technology "In its infancy" directly implies that not much is known about it. Like I said it's been around for 65 years and it's been in use, just not in a lot of locations compared to more conventional extraction methods that rely on natural pressure. Quite a lot is known about it, that's how they knew when it became economically viable for large scale production in the first place. Comparing it to other drilling in the way that you did is dishonest. That's like saying that railroad track laying is in it's infancy because the miles of rails laid is a tiny fraction compared to the miles of roads laid.

 

[YoPopa]

I'm not entirely confident that Albell knows how to use hyperbole. His posting history leads me to suspect that he believed what he wrote.



Significantly? I doubt it. The history of indoor heating is rather long and easily predates electric heating. I'd think that the expanded lifespans have more to do with modern healthcare than modern heaters.

I'm not saying that the sudden loss of electricity wouldn't be shattering to a great deal of people, but it's not something that I think humans couldn't, relatively easily, adapt to as a species.

Are you serious or is this just a case of take either side of an argument and pretend to discuss?

Without electricity I myself would be dead in short order. Before then my life would be a living hell of sleeplessness probably ending in via heart attack in the middle of the night as my father before me. With severe sleep apnea I depend on a CPAP machine for life. There are millions of others in my situation. No big deal for you cause the species will survive?

Why aren't you arguing with RF who thinks that a few polluted wells is a huge deal. Has anyone died as a result of those polluted wells? Do they threaten the survival of humanity?

If you take away electricity it won't matter a Tinker's damn if the wells are polluted or not because there will be no way to get the water out of most of them. The small town where I live could be very self sufficient in many ways. Most of us could heat with wood and most folks could have a subsistence garden but we all have private wells and the loss of electricity would put the kibosh on everything.

How much of your best quality food is in your refrigerator right now? How much of it is only available because it was refrigerated before you got it? Don't dare come back with the argument that we can re-learn canning and drying. The "we" who would be left would be a tiny fraction of the current world population.

 

[elbe]

Are you serious or is this just a case of take either side of an argument and pretend to discuss?

Without electricity I myself would be dead in short order. Before then my life would be a living hell of sleeplessness probably ending in via heart attack in the middle of the night as my father before me. With severe sleep apnea I depend on a CPAP machine for life. There are millions of others in my situation. No big deal for you cause the species will survive?

Why aren't you arguing with RF who thinks that a few polluted wells is a huge deal. Has anyone died as a result of those polluted wells? Do they threaten the survival of humanity?

If you take away electricity it won't matter a Tinker's damn if the wells are polluted or not because there will be no way to get the water out of most of them. The small town where I live could be very self sufficient in many ways. Most of us could heat with wood and most folks could have a subsistence garden but we all have private wells and the loss of electricity would put the kibosh on everything.

How much of your best quality food is in your refrigerator right now? How much of it is only available because it was refrigerated before you got it? Don't dare come back with the argument that we can re-learn canning and drying. The "we" who would be left would be a tiny fraction of the current world population.

Most of the developed world would be screwed up and, yes, people would die, but humans are amazingly adaptable and we, as a species, would be able to handle a backtrack of a century or two. The idea that only a tiny fraction of humanity could survive such an event is, frankly, absurd.

I, of course, don't want that to happen. I'm an IT guy, electricity is the backbone of my entire skillset, but the idea that I couldn't, if forced to, learn to farm to feed myself is an odd one. I imagine, however, that many casualties would arise from the inevitable riots and stockpiling of non-perishables. And that's ignoring that other technologies just don't cease to exist - or are we magically reverting all of civilization to the middle ages in one fail swoop?

As for RandFan, I've made my position clear on that/

 

[YoPopa]

Most of the developed world would be screwed up and, yes, people would die, but humans are amazingly adaptable and we, as a species, would be able to handle a backtrack of a century or two. The idea that only a tiny fraction of humanity could survive such an event is, frankly, absurd.

As for RandFan, I've made my position clear on that/

I don't think "absurd" means what you think it means.

 

[elbe]

I don't think "absurd" means what you think it means.

I think you have a poor understanding of human history.

 

[YoPopa]

I think you have a poor understanding of human history.

Talking cavalierly about the death of millions (just the ones who depend on medical equipment for life support) is no big deal if you consider the 100's of millions slaughtered by far left ideologies. No big deal to you but I take issue with it since I would be one of the first to die. I have a real understanding and appreciation of the worth of my life.

You made it clear that the EPA (who now conduct armed raids and use drones for surveillance) need more teeth. Teeth to make sure a couple wells don't get polluted. Your sense of perspective is stunning.

 

[RandFan]

Calling a technology "In its infancy" directly implies that not much is known about it. Like I said it's been around for 65 years and it's been in use, just not in a lot of locations compared to more conventional extraction methods that rely on natural pressure. Quite a lot is known about it, that's how they knew when it became economically viable for large scale production in the first place. Comparing it to other drilling in the way that you did is dishonest. That's like saying that railroad track laying is in it's infancy because the miles of rails laid is a tiny fraction compared to the miles of roads laid.

No. Calling a technology "in its infancy" implies that it has been around a tiny fraction of the time of other technologies. We have a small amount of experience to gather data for RELATIVE to other technologies.

I'm sorry but calling me dishonest won't change anything and it's a really lousy way to have conversation. Reasonable people can disagree without aspersions and childish fits. If you don't agree with me that's fine. I stand by what I said. And your railroad analogy doesn't even make sense. Both have been around for a long time. There might have been a point when it was applicable but whatever comparison there once was has been lost to time. We simply don't have a broad depth of experience with fracking.

Now, you can respond to me in an adult fashion and I will continue to engage you. Or, if you like, we can disagree like gentlemen and move on. However, if you insist on attacking me personally then I've no interest in the discussion.