Gasoline/diesel prices hit record highs
 

After going to visit my shorty in L.A. a few weeks back, I see that Californians get WTFPWNed as far as gas prices go. Here in my native Texas, the station down the street I put in my '98 Expedition is $3.37/gal, which is up 20 cents from Sunday when I last filled up. Out there, where my shorty makes a 120-mile round-trip between work and school, gasoline ranges anywhere from 3.72 to 4.05/gal!

Don't care what your political affiliation is - that shit is fucking debilitating. At 2.50 a gallon, I paid about 50 bucks to fill up; now I'm paying anywhere from 68-75 bucks to top off my tanks.

But this isn't a thread to necessarily bitch about gas prices, the question is: What do we do.

You got Clinton (perhaps Obama, though I remember him saying it explicitly) screeching that she's going to levy a windfall profit tax against the oil companies, but I don't think that's gonna help a bitch ass thing, since that tax will merely be passed onto the consumer like all other taxes.

Then of course, you have your greens who say we should partake in cleaner, more renewable sources of energy, which is all fine and dandy but nothing on the table is cost-effective for the mass population.

Then you have (at least in my view) more practical people who believe we should drill in places like ANWR, off the coast of California and Florida, and other places where we have domestic sources of oil.

Ultimately - I think we should do a combination of my second and third options. I see no problem in funding research into renewable energy but I just think it's silly as fuck for us not to tap our own sources.

What do you think? Toss our your ideas, debate, attack, defend, get to buckin' on niggas.

Get at me.

People complain about $3.50 a gallon? Over here prices have risen to about £1.07 a litre, that's approximately $9.70 a gallon.

As a result, people are doing the obvious thing and using their cars less. Kids have started walking to school again, the trains and buses are busy and the petrol stations much quieter. Admittedly ours is a much smaller country so things are closer together (120 mile round trip from work to school? That's ridiculous, don't they have any jobs nearer?) which makes public transport or walking a more viable option.

A lot of people are downsizing their cars too. The government is encouraging this by putting up road taxes on big engined cars and dropping them on hybrids and smaller cars. I guess what will eventually happen is a wholesale opinion change. People will stop seeing big cars as a right and see them as a luxury item you only buy if you can afford to run it. I imagine that'd take a while longer to sink into the American mindset though, you guys love your trucks after all.

For the future, most car companies are already looking at alternative fuel sources. There's already been a couple of fully functioning hydrogen fuel cell concept cars produced but the cost of the cells makes them completely prohibitive. I'm sure that sooner or later someone will produce an affordable one and we'll all forget we ever used petrol. I don't really think that digging up more oil is the answer. Unless governments start forcing the oil companies to drop their prices, no extra supply is ever going to have a significant effect on prices at the pumps. To believe that lower costs to the oil companies leads to reduced prices is naive. There are far too few oil companies and it's far too hard for new companies to enter the market so oligopoly pricing is in full effect. They simply don't need to undercut each other, it's a total seller's market.

I'd suggest that windfall taxes and the like will only serve to move the companies out of America. After all, the demand for oil in China and India is massive and if the companies can get a better price there, they'll sell to the Chinese.

As a short term measure, most diesel vehicles will run on used cooking oil with a minimum of modification and that's a damn sight cheaper than buying petrol.

I'm with Franz - 3.50 is nothing.

Fuck the whiners, make a new variable tax that solidifies the price of gas at a constant $7/gallon. Clearly, the only way to convince Americans to change their habits is to hit them where it counts.

I'm not sure where you'll find enough legislators who are unhappy enough with their jobs to enact this tax, since doing so would be nothing short of political suicide.

Then make it a closed session or a voice vote or something. The US is approaching the situation Michigan's in:

1. People are stupid and can only see short-term
2. Hence any politician that does anything good in the long term but painful in the short-term doesn't get re-elected
3. Hence no problem is ever fixed

Michigan, for example, has cut taxes to the point where we can't fund any services, but we still can't get anyone to admit we need to raise taxes to get the state in a good enough shape to attract any sort of business.

It's a rather destructive cycle.

You really haven't thought this through, have you?

If this tax you're proposing were enacted, you wouldn't be able to sneak it through like that; somebody would bring in their own parliamentary tricks to force those responsible to acknowledge it somehow, and then punish them for it. And even if individual legislators couldn't be singled out (except for the sponsors), the party in control of Congress would suffer, since repealing the tax would be an instant national campaign issue that would gain traction with liberals and conservatives alike. It would lead to defeat of legislators from the majority party, who would have acquiesed to passing the tax, the defeat of the President (or his party, if he's on his way out) who signed it into law, and would be the gift that keeps on giving for the minority party, since they can retain control by raising the spectre of the tax coming back to retain control.

Nobody likes being screwed at the pump, and they can easier and more directly hit back if it's elected officials doing the screwing than if it's a corporation.

Speaking of corporations, "Big Oil" gets a break here, since when people complain vocally about how much more they're paying for gas, the government would be the ones responsible for the even higher prices, not the oil companies. They could use their political capital to work to repeal the tax (since they care about their customers) and trade on the public goodwill that it would generate to reap more profit in the future with small, unnoticable price hikes.

So again, this idea is political suicide, and no legislator with half a brain or who cares about keeping his or her job is going to touch it.

I don't know why this is a political topic, really. Like NP said, no matter your political affiliation, it's going to to affect you. Why NP drives a giant SUV is beyond me at this point.

Like Shin said, people should start relying on their car less and on alternative modes of transportation more. If you live in a city, use public transportation to get around.

Use your bike. Hell, use your feet if it's an option. No one will think less of you for it.

There are alternatives out there for the local persons.

But we're not even looking at personal vehicles anymore. The cost of diesel is SKY high. That means our trucking system needs to be revamped as well. I was just looking at a train hauling ass through the woods the other and was wondering why we don't aspire to use trains more. I mean hell, there are so many possibilities there.

Anyways, on a personal level, it's about more walking and biking than before. Unfortunately, I can't do that in winter here. I'll have to suck it up then, but for now, the weather is nice and I have no real excuse.

Which is indicative that the SYSTEM rather than the idea is retarded.

I don't really like to think about how high the price of everything we use in our everyday lives will go up if the cost of diesel suddenly shot to $7 a gallon. I mean, I know I can handle $7 a gallon with my car that gets over 30MPG and I drive, maybe, 300 miles a month, but there's really not a whole lot I can do to curtail my consumption of food or other necessities which have to be shipped.

Yeah, I want a system where bureaucrats can implement sweeping changes to the economy with zero accountability. You are a credit to your race.

What good is it going to drill more? Don't get me wrong I'm all for drilling offshore nice Florida real estate that is quickly becoming worth less, but even if we did it'd take something like 3-5 years for that oil to hit the market. Just take it up the ass for a couple more years with an ever rising prices caused by a weak dollar and speculative inflation that's slowly strangling the economy? No thanks.

I say we kick Helicopter Ben out of the Fed, and drag Paul Volker's ass out of retirement to make things right. If he can kill stagflation once and ruin a promising presidency (Carter) I bet he can do it again. If doesn't come quietly he can kick and scream all he wants whilst inflicting pain on the American people to the tune of 16-18% interest rates again. It'll encourage savings, which will -hopefully- cause the dollar to stop it's free fall and stabilize. While it quickly kills the housing market and chokes off cheap credit that is feeding the commodities (food, oil, gold) bubble. It's not a coincidence that all-time dollar lows are followed by all-time oil highs. Speaking of ruining a promising presidency, I hear Volker is one of Obama's main economic advisers.

I'm kidding of course (kinda). The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think there's any practical political solutions to this problem. Not very likely ones in any case. I think we're just gonna drag our economic woes out for as long as possible. By doing what will cause the minimal pain in the short-term while causing the maximum damage in the long term. Wouldn't be the first time it's happened.

Hoping against Windfall Tax bullshit, personally. Oil companies are making tons of money, but the vast, vast majority of it goes right back in to the system (exploration, upstream/downstream development, etc). If you implement heavy taxation, oil companies will need to cut costs in order to stay in the black. This involves laying off employees, typically, as well as oil platform development. With a lack of manpower, the industry has trouble keeping up with supply-demand eventually and you have the flow of things slowing tremendously.

Windfall Taxation was one of the failures that led to lines at the gas pump a few decades back, but I guess people don't care... :(

This won't help a bitch ass thing and you know it. The political suicide argument aside, you will effectively create a massive amount of price hikes across the board. You liberals whine about helping the poor and middle class so much, but yet you propose shit like this that will literally create third world-like conditions. Good job.

Because it's the only vehicle I have, obviously.

Wait, I thought Democrats were all about.....y'know, democracy! It seems like you're advocating a system where Congress isn't actually acountable to the people who elect them to office, because how else would you change the system from it's retarded state to one you think makes sense?

You'd think a trade-in would be considered here, NP. I mean, if it's really killing your wallet, get rid of it. Makes sense to me. Not that it's my business, but you're bitching about it. So imagine there's a solution to the problem, if you really want it.

Vanity can only go so far.

We don't need more fucking oil. We need to get off the addiction to oil - not seek out more food for the fatties. The solution lies in both the psyche of the world and other forms of alternative transportation (which includes different types of vehicles which are fueled by something more renewable and less expensive than fossil fuel.)

Yay for a hippie attitude~

I'm not bitching about gasoline prices - it is what it is and if I want to move around, I'm gonna pay the cost.

Besides - I actually need a SUV. When I DJ parties or perform at shows, it helps to have the extra cargo space for equipment - plus my logo is on the vehicle, which in the rap game helps me out by making people think I'm a lot more famous than I actually am.

And you can say we don't need more oil, but you know that's not the case.

I'm all for alternative fuels, but that shit is not going to change overnight. In the meantime, let us use the resources we do have to alleviate the pressure while we research and try to make a transition gradually over time. I'm not against change, but I'm not all for trying to force change and fucking everything up in the process.

I drive a Jeep Grand Cherokee - I'm no better. But I also need it for all the trekking I do, so I guess we're both idiots. =D

No, I agree with you. The problem won't resolve itself overnight, by far. But the change starts here and now.

The industry has got to change as well. There are different kinds of vehicles that use different technologies which should be made available to the public. If there's a demand (and there seems to be) for different kinds of vehicles, it'd be worth the research and production. While I'm not an expert in any of these fields, I see a lot of potential out there to make the transition in the auto industry from fossil fuel to alternative fuels.

Petroleum in your every day products and trucking costs with diesel of course will take longer to resolve. But for immediate purposes (since we're talking about the cost of gasoline to the average retail consumer), the vehicle issue could be resolved if there wasn't so much goddamn red tape.

I figure you're all for drilling in Alaska?

I'm for drilling wherever there is oil.

So you're all for potentially destroying an arguably pristine piece of national forest and it's ecosystem in the name of a temporary solution to a fuel crisis?

Don't you think that maybe we could explore other options before finding more crack for the people and their SUVs?

Could you explain your rationale there?

Well, if you're talking about ANWR - the drill site won't affect the surrounding ecosystem in any appreciable way.

If you're talking about other potential spots that may be underneath national forests and shit, even then - yeah, drill away.

Psh, like there's any "accountability" now. When's the last time a politician was voted out of office for incompetence? Barring sexual scandal, I don't think anyone's paid attention to a politician's views in forty years.

I would RATHER have a system with unaccountable people who at least tried to do the right thing than a system with "accountable" people who act only in their personal interests without even pretending to care what was good for people.

You can drill for oil all you want, but nothing will ever match the oil producing ability of the rich middle east. If we're already pumping as much as we can from the richest deposits of oil known to the world and we're getting these prices, what is trying to squeeze oil from a few measly spots going to do?

Peak oil is coming: really fast, too. If anybody's ever watched a documentary about electric cars, it'd be a no brainer. Electric is far far far cheaper and somewhat renewable, but the mysterious car companies decided not to produce them anymore, and just SMASH them all.
Something tells me we'll be seeing them revived again by the early turn of the decade at worst.

But all in all, the modern American way of life is going to come to an end in our generation. Local communities will become MUCH more important. Electric batteries won't do much for a fully loaded trailer, so the cargo industry will change beyond my perception.

I also fucking hate having my wife using gamingforce on the same computer.

The simple fact of the matter, in my opinion, is that there IS no solution. Every potential solution runs into the same problem, which is that the planet can only support so much (although I'm a LITTLE heartened by an apparent breakthrough which involves using molten salts to store solar energy). And it's only going to get worse: if the average citizen in China were to approach the level of consumption that the average American citizen does, then they would use more resources on their own than the entire world does today. And that's not even factoring in India, which is undergoing a process similar to China (albeit slower), and has around as much population.

And the scarcity of oil is going to have a drastic effect on pretty much everything. Our food economy basically is run solely on oil. Oil fuels the tractors that (inefficiently) farm our land, oil fuels the semis that transport our food (the average bite of food an American eats has travelled 1,500 miles from farm to your plate), and oil even creates the fertilizer which keep our food growing.

Barring Gene Roddenberry rising from the grave and telling us exactly HOW we can produce replicators and reliable antimatter reactors, I can only see one inevitable conclusion: either our civilization as a whole collapses and we regress into a local economy, or we go up in a nuclear fire.

to be honest, the only way I see option one happening is if we run out of fuel too fast to be bothered running the planes that would otherwise drop the bomb.

I agree with this.

The solution doesn't lie in finding more oil. The solution lies in axing this co-dependent nature we have with fossil fuel.

While everyone is digging up Alaska and wasting time trying to fuel our addiction (lol pun), we could maybe be doing something a lot more productive with our time and money, like finding more efficient engines and weaning off so much petroleum in our every day products.

PS - NP, you didn't explain the rationale. Sadface.

I was actually going to pop in and say "oh good, Zeph's abusive wife weighed in on the subject. Let's all relax, question answered." And then I was all: "holy fuck, that's surprisingly bright for that girl." And then I read the end. And I laughed.

There are all sorts of options. Dedicated rail, electric cars, hydrogen power... endless number of things we could try. Some of them have been shown to work quite well (see Japan, see Europe) but the bitch of it is trying to get nations bloated on oil money to do it. If there's one thing that people have proven, just because they have to do something or something hugely terrible will happen to them in the near future, doesn't mean they can be arsed to look away from the Price is Right or their new Hummer's long enough to actually try any of it.

I personally think we're already passed royally fucked. It really doesn't matter if the entirety of the western world suddenly switched to greener fuels. It wont stop China, India, and other modernizing nations from using fossil fuels. America alone consumes 3/4ths of the Earth's resources. When the majority of China lives like the US the entire world will be in some serious shit.

This doesn't even have to do with the whole climate change thing either. There simply isn't enough on this planet to support so many people living like this. A lot of our metals only have 40-50 years left at our current consumption. If nations like China or India advance you can cut that in half or more.

This isn't just a problem with oil running out, but a problem with how humans in general are living. We're wasting way too much and being way too fucking lazy about fixing it. All of our technology is incredibly wasteful and no one is doing anything about making it more efficient. I'm sorry, but seeing a new gasoline car get 30-40 mpg only now in 07/08 isn't impressive when we have had diesel vehicles getting much better than that for a long time. You cant even buy those diesel vehicles here in the states either!

We cannot just simply change our fuels.

Ethanol is pointless, especially ethanol gained from corn. It raises the price on feed for livestock and humans. Since it's more profitable to sell corn for fuel, meat prices will go up as farmers sell less feed and raise less livestock. Everything that uses corn based products will rise in price since there's less corn for human consumption.

Switch grass would be a better source for ethanol, since it grows fucking everywhere and you don't lose as much energy as you would when using corn. But this wouldn't change the fact you still need twice as much ethanol to run an engine, so the distance you get on a gallon is even worst.

Electric wont work either, at least not until we have fusion reactors working. I dont see that happening anytime soon. That's the only possible way electric cars could be clean and cost effective. Otherwise it still pollutes a shit ton, since you have those nasty batteries and all the fossil fuels being used up to generate the electricity charging your car. Which brings up my next point about electric cars. You are still using up oil and other fossil fuels in all those electric plants. Nuclear fission isn't the answer either since the public is resistant and there's a limited amount of fuel for that too!

Solar powered cars wont work. The panels are just not efficient enough, and you get the same problems with electric cars.

Hydrogen powered cars wont work either. You need to build up all the infrastructure for it, like all those hydrogen gas stations. It is also very costly to get that hydrogen. There isn't a cheap and easy way to make the stuff.

Simply put, there isn't some magic fuel we can switch to. We need to change our habits and the way we live to fix our problem, or at least delay it until we can figure out a solution. However, humanity tends to not want to do anything until we're forced. So I dont see us changing, I see us consuming more and more until it's too late.

I guess I'll have to get use to paying higher and higher prices for my food, services, fuel, and products..

The government pushes ethanol, but you're right - it's not that great.

There's a reason they push for the ethanol, too. Corn lobby. My god, is that shit dirty business. Awful awful awful.

Deni is right, though. This country is "bloated" on oil money. (nice way to put it) It's hard to wean a nation off of that kind of thing.

Hydrogen currently costs MORE...FAR MORE than your silly Expedition sucks. And full-scale integration of hyrdrogen into the market, even if there were some kind of scientific revalation to make it way cheaper, would still cost us at the pump. Not to mention most Americans can't afford a new car of that calibre.

Not to mention, I don't want my car to explode.

I just remembered another problem humanity is facing. If we cannot change how we live then we will need to find more resources. If the earth is out then we must look elsewhere, like the rest of our solar system.

But we cannot do that if we do not have the technology for it. We wont even be on the moon untill, what.. 2015? 2020? Space is such a nice, big source of resources. It's just waiting to be used up and no one seems to be looking into it.

A potential solution is up there and we are again dragging our feet. People ask what the point of space exploration is? How about the materials needed to let you live the way you do day in and out?

It saddens me too, because the way I see it.. by the time we have the knowledge and technology to get up there and mine the resources we need there wont be any materials left on earth to build the equipment to get up there.

I could also be exaggerating the problem and overly critical, but oh well. I know going up into space and mining some asteroid is easier said than done, but why does there seem to be no push for it? Why no research into it at all? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I cant seem to find any group thats trying..

Why is nuclear electricity so unbeneficial. As far as I know, it just heats up water off of a beach front to turn the turbines? I thought the only conflict was the health hazard...which honestly, who gives a shit about? It's not like we aren't killing ourselves other ways.

Enlightenment please.

Regarding metals and such, the US still has fucktons of metals, but due to shit like NIMBY, folks don't want to drill, mine, or anything like that on US soil. Too much red tape and folks who get their panties in a twist over it. Getting to fusion would be dandy, but nuclear research isn't exactly fired up since folks are still wetting themselves over Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Canada and Russia have oil in amounts that dwarf the Middle East, provided we come up with means to get past permafrost (which is possible in the next few years given the cash going in to oil). Add to the fact that the political climate in both of those are much friendlier to the US, and you've got things a little more stable.

Space Exploration would be the best thing ever >=( Buuuuuut people lack foresight, and politicians are no different. We'd need another space race of sorts (sup china), but I don't know if we'd get that going. NASA's funding is abysmal. It doesn't even account for even close to 1% of the fiscal policy, which is disgusting given what it has provided for us technologically.

I side with electrical, but we'd need lots more coal burning and (preferably) nuclear power plants across the countryside for it to be feasible. Ethanol is illogical, since you'd need LOTS of corn just to power one car the same as a full tank of gasoline would. Wind and solar simply don't have that much oomph (it's a matter of flux. You've got stuff coming in, but you can't make it 1000x more effective on its way out). There was a severe caveat to biodiesel, but it escapes me at the moment. Maybe I'll remember it later :( Hmm.

Zeph --
People see Chernobyl and assume that it's how all melt-downs will go down. But there are a number of things around Chernobyl that folks don't notice:
1) It was deemed as poorly designed when it was built in the 1960s. It melted down in the 1980s.
2) It was deemed poorly designed by RUSSIAN engineers. These guys run things until they break, typically. A plant under these specs probably wouldn't have even opened in the states.
3) The personnel were quite lackluster in maintenance and such.

Three Mile Island was an ideal melt-down in the way that there was no major fall-out, no deaths, and no injuries. Some Jane Fonda movie (China Syndrome) came out literally two weeks earlier and folks went batshit after that came out and a plant melted down.

People know the dangers of dealing with a nuclear plant and take every step to prevent a large-scale fuck-up. A majority of France's power (over 80% I believe) is nuclear, but you've never heard of a single melt-down over there. The drawback to nuclear? Just keep it in check and you're golden. But just like mining, drilling, development, and other things, the "environmentally friendly" dig their heels in and block off lots of paths. Their hearts are in the right place and all, but they REALLY complicate shit. Nuclear is a fine example.

When is the last time a nuclear power plant went online in the US anyway? Not for a while, right? Most of our plants are pretty old. Nuclear reactor designs have come a long way. They are much safer and cleaner. Now if we could only build them. Oh, what about the waste? We can't forget that. I dont think we have any way to fully re-use or get rid of the waste at the moment. Storing it in the ground will only work for so long.

I just don't see it as a solution in the US because of the public. No one wants it in their back yard. They will never get built, at least not in the amount we need to get off fossil fuels.

If we could shift to nuclear fission, and use that until fusion got off the ground I could see electric cars replacing gasoline vehicles and pretty much everything that uses fuel to move. This wont solve your problem with plastics and other materials that need petroleum, but it would help. Like I said before though, I really don't think that will ever happen.

Last I checked the Pinto already had that covered.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stalin, Kruschev, Brezhnev, and Gorbachov are all riding on a train when suddenly it breaks down. After a little while the four men get to talking about what they'd do to get the train working again.

Stalin: I say, we shoot the driver.

Kruschev: I say, we rehabilitate the driver.

Brezhnev: Why don't we put on the phonogram, draw the curtains, and pretend that the train is moving?

Gorbachov: Gentlemen, gentlemen, please. Let's all get out and push.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A socialist, a capitalist and a communist agreed to meet. The socialist was late. 'Excuse me for being late, I was standing in a queue for sausages.'

'And what is a queue?' the capitalist asked.

'And what is a sausage?' the communist asked.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will there be KGB in communism?

No, by then people will have learned to arrest themselves.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the difference between the two newspapers "The Truth" and "The News"?

In "The Truth" there is no news, and in the "The News" there is no truth.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a madhouse there was a propagandist highly praising the Soviet Authority. When he finished everyone applauded except for one man standing off to one side.

'And why aren't you clapping?' asked the propagandist.

'I'm not a lunatic, I'm the hospital attendant!'
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A patient asks the chemist to write down in the registry for him to see the eye-ear doctor. But instead he's told there's an ear-throat-foot doctor and an eye doctor but no ear-eye doctor.

'But I need an ear-eye doctor!' the patient insists.

'And what are you complaining of?'

'I hear one thing, and see another!
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why have the newer models of TVs been equipped with screen wipers, similar to the windshield wipers on a car?

Because people are frequently spitting at the screen.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A lawyer, a surgeon, a builder and a communist were having an argument about whose trade was older.

'When God condemned Adam and Eve and exiled them from paradise,' said the lawyer, 'that was a legal act! So my profession is the oldest.'

'But please,' the surgeon said, 'before that God created Eve from Adam's rib. And that was a surgical operation! So my profession is older.'

'Forgive me,' said the builder, 'but a little bit earlier than that God created the world, he constructed it. So my profession is the oldest. Because as is known, there was only chaos before that.'

'And who created chaos?' the communist exclaimed triumphantly. 'Certainly, we communists!'
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is economic reform?

An injection into an artificial limb.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brezhnev called together a group of cosmonauts. 'Comrades! The Americans have landed on the Moon. We here have consulted and have decided that you will go to the Sun!'

'But we will burn up, Leonid Iljich!'

'Be not afraid, comrades, the Party has thought of everything. You
will leave at night.'
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was a question on Armenian radio for which there was no answer: If all countries became socialist, where would we buy grain?
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's the real ratio between the Pound, the Rouble and the Dollar?

A pound of Roubles is worth a Dollar.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brezhnev and Nixon took a trip by helicopter to inspect workers in the suburbs of Moscow. Nixon noticed workers' barracks with television aerials and exclaimed, 'You have surpassed us! We still don't have TVs in our pigsties!'
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it true that America comes in first place in the world for the number of cars?

It's truth. But the Soviet Union comes in first for the number of places to park.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Englishman, a Frenchman and a Russian are praising their wives.

'When my wife goes for a ride,' the Englishman says, 'her
legs drag on the ground. Not because the horse is small, but
because my wife has long beautiful legs!'

'I embrace my wife around the waist with only two fingers,' says the Frenchman, 'not because I have a big hand, but because my wife has a slim waist!'

'Before leaving for work,' says the Russian, 'I slap my wife's behind. And when I come back from work, her behind is still shaking. It's not because my wife has a big flabby ass, but because in the USSR we have the shortest working day in the world!'
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A customer asks at a shop, 'What's this, you don't have any meat again?'

'That's not true! There's no meat in the shop opposite. We don't have fish.'
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A person is walking along the street in one boot.

'Have you lost a boot?' a passer-by asks.

'On the contrary - I've found one!'
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

When did the first Soviet elections take place?

When God put Eve before Adam and said: 'Choose yourself a wife!'
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the day of elections a voter received a ballot, but instead of lowering the ballot into the voting box, he began to read the surname of the single candidate.

'What are you doing?' his observer asked

'I want to find out, who I voted for.'

'Yes but don't you know that elections are secret?!'
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Nixon visited the USSR, Brezhnev showed him a Soviet phone of the latest technology in which it was possible to call Hell. Nixon called the Devil. The conversation cost only 27 Kopecks.

Upon returning to America, Nixon told everyone about the Soviet marvel. But as it turned out such a phone had been invented in America a long time ago. Nixon again called Hell, but this time the conversation cost 12 thousand dollars!

Nixon, understandedly upset, cried, 'But in the USSR a phone call to Hell costs only 27 kopecks!'

'Yes sir, but there it was a local call.'
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The seven miracles of the Soviet Authority:
1. There is no unemployment, yet nobody works.
2. Nobody works, yet the Grand Scheme is carried out.
3. The Grand Scheme is carried out, yet there is nothing to buy.
4. There is nothing to buy, yet there are lineups everywhere.
5. There are lineups everywhere, yet everyone has everything.
6. Everyone has everything yet everyone is dissatisfied.
7. Everyone is dissatisfied, yet everyone votes 'Yes'.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is the Soviet Sun so joyful in the morning ?

Because it knows that by evening it will be in the West.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Lena, I have ordered that the border be opened,' said Brezhnev.

'What! Have you lost your mind?! Everyone will get away, only the two of us will remain!'

'Hmmm, and who's the second?'
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why doesn't the USSR start sending people to the Moon?

Because they are afraid they will become defectors.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why did the Supreme Soviet decided to invade Afghanistan?

They decided to begin alphabetically.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Who's your father?' the teacher asked Vovo.

'Comrade Stalin!'

'And who's your mother?'

'The Soviet native land!'

'And what do you want to become?'

'An orphan!'
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stalin informed Beria that his phone was missing. The next day
Stalin told Beria that the phone was found.

'But I've already arrested 25 people regarding this matter, and they all
admitted to the crime!' said Beria.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a prison:

'How many years did you get?

'Twenty-five.'

'For what?'

'For nothing.'

'You're lying! For nothing they give ten.'
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Comrade,' asks the secretary of the Party Bureau, 'Do you have an opinion on this question?'

'I have an opinion yes, but I don't agree with it!'
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is democratic centralism?

It's when everyone together says, 'yes' and when everyone individually says, 'nay'.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Englishman, a Frenchman and a Russian once shared their opinions on what was happiness.

'I test happiness,' said the Englishman, 'when in the winter, after good hunting I come back home and with a glass of good brandy, I settle down in an armchair opposite a roaring fire.'

'For me happiness,' said the Frenchman, 'is when I'm in a good restaurant eating good food and drinking good wine in the company of a fine woman, and then - a night of passion.'

'How you understand happiness!' exclaims the Russian. 'For me happiness is when, after a wearisome workday, I come into my room in my communal home, where I live together with my wife, my two children and the mother-in-law, and during the night there is a loud knock at the door, and I open it, and on the threshold are two threatening looking creatures standing there and ask me "Are you citizen Paramonov?" and I answer them: "He's not here, Paramonov lives a floor above!" Now there is true happiness!'
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brezhnev and Nixon are standing near Niagara Falls with their bodyguards when they decide to test them. They both order them to jump into the falls. The American bodyguard refuses, saying, 'I have a family and children!'

The Russian rushes towards the Falls without thinking, but at the last moment he's stopped.

'How did you decide to do such a thing without even thinking?' asks Nixon.

'I have a family and children!'
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is Russian business?

Stealing a box of vodka and selling it so as to have money to spend on drink.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

One East German policeman asks another:

'What do you think of our regime?'

'The same as you.'

'Then it's my duty to arrest you!'
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Soviet tourist examines the home of a foreign worker: a bedroom, a dining room, a children's room, a living room, a kitchen...

'We have all this too, only without partitions!'
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In prison:

'What are you in for?'

'I told a joke.'

'And you?'

'Listened to a joke.'

'And you?'

'For laziness! I was at a party. One person there told a joke. I went home wondering whether to inform right then or tomorrow morning? "All right," I thought," tomorrow morning will be fine." And I was taken away during the night!'
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the specified theory of historical materialism between Socialism and Communism the intermediate stage is inevitably-alcoholism.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...ot-rimshot.gif

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


I bet you'll get it right, though.

He probably doesn't, Brady. All Arainach has revealed is that he wants an authoritarian government that decides for the people what's best for them. This whole illusion of being for liberty and freedom is just a facade.

Actually, China is (Relatively speaking) a far, far greener nation than most other developed countries. Their CO2 production per capita is a fraction of the US, they recycle pretty much everything, build carbon neutral buildings and have very efficient production methods. The reason they buy up so much in the way of natural resources is because they want to control it all before the west squanders it.

Even by digging up Alaska (An expensive proposition) and invading the rest of the middle east (Not cheap either), America and the rest of the west will struggle to find a supply of oil to match their insatiable appetites in anything but the very short term. No amount of legislation can fight off global market forces for long and people will eventually be forced to reasses their priorities and start finding ways to rely less on oil. Whether that's through driving less and in smaller cars or buying locally sourced food and goods with lower delivery costs is personal preference but as demand for less oil-dependent goods rises, so the impetus to invest in these methods and technologies grows too.

People can complain all they want but if they're too lazy to change their ways, I have little sympathy for them. As a country that is so fond of capitalism, America shouldn't really be too upset when market forces determine that their petrol gets more expensive.

You sounded completely opposed to the nuclear idea in your first post...

Why can't we just store nuclear waste in Antarctica? Does it require that much upkeep?

Capitalism != Liberty. Hell, Accountable Government != Liberty, as we've seen. Capitalism is not some perfect solution. Given the choice between absolute communism and absolute capitalism, I'd pick absolute communism any day, since governments are more inefficient at screwing you than corporations. A balanced system is needed, and we've leaned way too far towards laissez-faire, as indicated by the fact that, you know, our entire economy is collapsing. I'm not discussing governments that are real and/or practical. I already admitted that earlier in this thread. I'm discussing that, in absolute terms, I would prefer an authoritarian government that paid attention and cared over a 'free' one that continued driving us towards starvation, chaos, anarchy, and destruction any day.

Easier said than done is putting it extremely mildly. Space is not a 'nice, big source of resources'; it is an environment incredibly unfriendly to all carbon-based life, where even the slightest error can mean death and billions of dollars lost. The costs and logistics of even getting a few people up to the Moon are outrageous. Transporting materials into space currently costs many thousands of dollars per kilogram. To make any kind of space mining operations economically viable would almost certainly take many generations (I'm discounting the potential effect of approaching technological singularity and such, because who really knows what that would entail), and who exactly would be willing to make such a long term, enormous, incredibly risky investment?

I do believe there is some potential for space exploration and colonisation in the future, but humanity is not yet at a stage where it could be considered a realistic option at all. The costs outweigh the benefits a million times over. Also, space isn't some sort of emergency back-up variant, like 'Oh shit, we fucked up the Earth, where's the next closest planet?'. I believe that until we solve our problems on Earth (to a reasonable degree), there's no hope in colonising the space.

As for your concern that eventually there won't be any materials left on Earth to get to space, I doubt that. What materials are you talking about, exactly? Rocket fuel, maybe, but realistically speaking, the rocket propellants in use today are simply way too heavy and expensive to get anywhere at a reasonable pace, so whatever ships would be used in colonisation or mining operations almost certainly wouldn't run on conventional fuel anyway.

What has it provided for us technologically? Most of the NASA spinoffs seem to be either very narrowly used, or just part of natural technological progress that would have occured with or without NASA.

And let's not forget making the trains run on time.

Look at how dumb you are.

Authoritarian governments are never a better alternative to any form of democracy, since giving complete control to thinktanks is a recipe for disaster. New Jersey put birth control hormones in their waterways instead of extending deer hunting season, what makes you think that the Central Authority is going to come up with better ideas?

In real terms, absolute freedom is better than absolute authority because in free societies people are at least able to support each other communally instead of having their labor and lives dictated by the central authority.

Also in case you didn't get it before, those jokes were all told by Soviets under Communism, which is for all intents and purposes the kind of system that you're proposing. An absolute authority which means well. (in theory)

Not a whole lot, tbqh. At this point megacorporations are the entities most likely to attempt space development since the trend in international politics is tending towards the denationalisation of space entirely. What point is there in government space programs developing outer space beyond immediate scientific curiosity when they can't even claim moon rocks?

Don't rag on NASA. My mom's Kirby vacuum uses NASA technology.

The salesman said so.

They're a far greener nation on average because so many people there don't have TVs, cars, radios, or anything of the sort that would actually use energy. Their "recycling" methods are very shoddy, and cause massive problems to the communities that spring up around those areas. It's mostly people that take apart dangerous equipment without any protection for themselves, so they can recycle it because it's worth barely enough for them to make a living off of. A number of those recycling centers in China and other poor areas actually get a lot of technological waste from westernized countries, because our laws don't have any stipulations on how things will be recycling, just that they need to be "recycled."

As for NASA, it's not just what they've done in space for us (satellites, communications advancements, computer advancements, new materials used in everyday products, etc), but things they've been funding on the ground in research facilities as well. And saying any of those inventions/discoveries would happen eventually anyway just calls into question the entirety of basic government-funded scientific research.

And multi-national space exploration is bullshit. Just look what happened to the International Space Station.

Sorry, I guess I came off the wrong way then. It is not that I am opposed to nuclear energy, it is that I simply do not see us shifting to an energy system that mainly uses nuclear power. I just don't think the general population will be accepting it for a long time.

I am very doubtful of any new energy or fuel sources we have currently. I would love it if we would use them, but the majority of our options just wont work with how things are right now..

Well, no, that's not what I meant, but perhaps that government funding would be more efficiently used to specifically focus on such inventions (research), rather than getting them as a potential side effect of space programmes. I mean, not that I think NASA shouldn't have a larger budget, but it's also not hard to see why most people don't view space exploration as a priority right now.

Well, the thing is, the government allocates that money to NASA, then NASA allocates that money to various companies, universities, and its own divisions in a quest to come up with various solutions. Along the way, there's usually a bunch of baby steps which have to be taken to solve the Bigger Problem, and those are typically the things we see trickle down into our every day life.

I agree that going through NASA to fund a lot of the research it does isn't necessarily the best way to distribute the funds, but you're not going to get congress to create yet another party to distribute money out for research than they already have (current biggest ones I'm familiar with are the National Institute of Health, Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards & Technology, and all the various military affiliated organizations (DARPA, NRL, etc)).

A lot of funding for solar technologies, recyclables, high-tech polymers/plastics, and such come out of funding from NASA much in the same way we get radar, noise-filtering/signal processing, ultra-strong materials, and high temperature alloys from military research.

I know I'm kinda wandering around topics, but one last note. Science usually isn't done to one really specific end. It's one of those things where you need to sprinkle a lot of seeds and hope one of them will be able to take hold, since each technology which is going to be the next big thing actually has ten hurdles to overcome before it can be. You just need to hope that you've either invested in enough projects that all ten of those things happen to be discovered at around the same time (and someone recognizes they can be put together), or you completely lucked out and put tons of money into what happened to be the best one.

Let's just take solar power, for example. There's hundreds of ways to try and harness solar energy. Some people are trying to mimic photosynthesis that plants use, some are making multilayers of differently doped silicon, some are doing multilayers of different semiconductors, some are working on ways to create very cheap photovoltaics so you can have moderately inefficient solar cells that are extremely cheap to manufacture, others are working on extremely efficient materials that are very expensive, so instead of covering your whole roof with the material, you use a postage-stamp sized piece, but you then need to cover your roof with (hopefully) inexpensive light collectors that'll push all of the light onto that little area. Even within that subset of collectors, there's a plethora of ways to try and go about collecting the light, and all of that is being looked into by hundreds/thousands of people worldwide.

Then let's look at fuel cells. You need methods of storing the hydrogen, you need methods of dispensing the hydrogen quickly and safely, you need to determine what kind of fuel cells you're going to work on, you need to figure out what operating temperatures you want to be running at. Each of these options gives completely different opportunities for research into completely different materials. An electrolyte which is good for methane fuel cells might be useless for hydrogen fuel cells.

One of the biggest problems facing these new technologies is that nobody knows what's going to offer the most promise in the next 5, 10, 20, 50 years. Think about how hard it was to decide if you were going to buy a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player. Now imagine if instead of just those two, you had 200 technologies to choose from, with none of them having any media released yet. That's the situation funding agencies are faced with today.

Sorry for the massive :rr: post, I just think this whole problem is a bit misunderstood by most people. It's not just like Civilization where you put 30% of your income into :forscience: and you're guaranteed a breakthrough. Sure, lots more money will help expedite the process, but experiments still take time, and we'd still need to train the people to conduct these experiments.

In case you were addressing me before, Racin, I was referring to the benefit of NASA as far as consumer goods went, which is how the issue is always framed.

The net benefits from scientific advancement and international communications were all well worth the investment.

What do you actually define as a "consumer good," though?

I've inherited a car from my folks that's a little gas-heavy. But fuck if I care. High gas prices or not, maintenance costs just as much, insurance half as much, and licensing fees probably a quarter as much. I'd rather have the gas-third of my costs grow than pay all that cash for a newer car AND spend more insuring it AND face faster depreciation.

At first I thought this was pretty self-evident until I started to doubt myself in thinking of consumer goods from a pre-information age perspective. Then I realized no wait you're probably just fucking with me, because global communications are a service and not a good.

What I was hinting at before is that NASA haters like to beat Tang and Temperpedic mattresses into the ground as if NASA programs have resulted in no other benefits to consumers or the world at large.

NASA on the net is worth it I guess, I dunno, they're just grossly inefficient and bogglingly retarded for a bunch of smart people.

I actually sat through a boring ass presentation on thermoelectric materials today. Apparently they were originally developed for spacecraft since they don't involve any moving parts and have super-high reliability. That technology is now trickling down into these cars that have coolers built into them. Sure, it's a stupid luxury now, but once these materials get even more efficient we'll be able to draw more than just a hundred watts off of the heat that's wasted from our combustion engines (or power plants, or anything else that releases heat when it runs).

I think the reason why NASA seems so inefficient is because they're doing so much pure research, which generally has very little immediate and obvious benefit to it. I mean, my research group has been getting money from NASA for years, and we're the only people in the world that can actually make a profit off of what we're researching. So far its most popular use has been in golf clubs and metal baseball bats. Also, they're inefficient because I don't think the smartest people want to work at NASA anymore. It doesn't pay as well as other jobs, you've got government bureaucrats breathing down your neck, and it's just not as "sexy" as it was back during the Apollo program. I'm hoping this is something that the recent proclamation of us wanting to build a moon base/go to mars will help fuel, though I really doubt it.

If we want to solve all these technological problems we really need to start making a career in science a lot more attractive than one in investment banking or any of these other really high paying careers that don't create wealth, but only shuffle it around.

Investment banking does create wealth, just not new types of wealth. Oh wait, it indirectly does that too, shit, fuck jews. :argh:

It won't. In order to get taxpayers to sign on to a project of that scope you have to present it as either A. necessary for the long-term survival of the human race, B. an opportunity to expand the resources available to the human pop at large, or C. fuck them chinky-chongs man free tibet

It's not going to happen with tepid lip service to circle jerking nerds.

What's to stop you trading it in for a car the same age as the one you inherited but with a smaller engine? Chances are your insurance would be cheaper too.

Also, citing depreciation as a cost of motoring is retarded. Who buys a car based on the potential future resale value?

Collectors.

Accountants. :(

Every finance exec I've ever met drives a car that's at least 4 years old. Every one of them has commented on the fact that vehicles depreciate a crapload early in their life and that buying new vehicles is the dumbest thing ever.

Could you sustain a country off of investment banking?

I appreciate the necessity of needing people to shuffle around large sums of money nowadays with how expensive things are and how it requires large collectives of people to get some of these things accomplished, but I often feel their value is a bit exaggerated.

I mean, how does trading stock beyond the initial investment in the original company actually generate money for anyone? It seems about as useful to society as buying ten pounds of gold, sitting on it for five years, and then reselling it, to me.

Off the off-topic:

How nice it must be to worry about record high prices for cars, while a lot of people are worrying about record high prices for food :3:

Back to the regularly scheduled off-topic!

Just as the workload of a law firm is carried out by a small number of people. ie; associates trying to make partner. Only a minority of the population are actual useful to keep society moving as usual. If the technocrats become disillusioned or start slacking off then society is fucked regardless of whatever our energy or financial problems are.

You don't want investment bankers responsible for scientific or productive parts of society. They can't handle facts or reality so they'd have nothing to contribute. I bet 60-80% of Wall Street is jacked up on booze, pills, or drugs. The rest occupy their time by crying to or doing the most depraved acts humans can think up with $2000+/hr whores.

Elliot Spitzer spent his life/career cracking down on all that, and look what happened to him in the end.

Gahahaha!!!


Why worry about it now eh? People aren't starving... yet. They're just hoarding. It's what people do in times of out of control inflation. (or hyperinflation) It's one of the only ways people can protect their wealth.


It depreciates the moment you drive it off the car lot. Within 2-3 years it's lost about 50% of it's value. Great investment huh?

Uhhhh I'm not one of those accountants that knows anything like that. I lack ambition among other things.

lolololol

I'm just making the point that investment banking does create wealth by allowing capital to be fluid instead of just sitting in banks or under mattresses.

Yeah, if nobody wants to be a scientist that is a problem. I'm sorry your earnings don't match your self-importance.

It's not so much the earnings don't match self-importance, as I feel many scientists are compensated quite fairly for what they do, it's more of other professions being overpaid for what their role is. I also feel it creates too much of a disincentive for people to become scientists/engineers and, in the long run, that will hurt our economy.

Brady, how does it actually create wealth and not just provide a service for which new wealth can be generated from? A slightly different question; does me paying the mortgage on my house cause the bank to generate wealth?

It doesn't generate wealth, it steals it. You're making the bank profit by paying your mortgage, because you're gonna end up paying far more than they lent you. The principal is the same for investment banks, only it steals from far more people and deposits the returns into the bonus checks of CEOs... then they walk away with all those millions of dollars while the banks struggle to survive, and continue to steal from people through foreclosures.

Yeah I know its all 'legit', but that does not make it right.

Yes. That is exactly how investment banking works Nehmi, you got it right. (hang the jews)

It is distressing, but then these fields do draw different types and as Watts hinted at it's probably best that the sexed up alcoholic frat idiots who join major firms aren't tasked with scientific study. Plus you're ignoring the element of social capital. Investment bankers are widely seen as scum while scientists are placed on a pedestal and engineering often dovetails into many already nerdy pastimes. It's far more socially rewarding than selling your soul constantly handling other people's assets and monitoring the markets with a single fuckup bringing the entire sword of Damocles falling down on your head and JESUS CHRIST WHERE'S THAT FUCKING COKE!?

Teaching is even far less paying work but our education colleges aren't exactly drying up for want of prospective educators.

If it provides a service from which wealth can be generated from then investment banking is generating wealth. I mean it is not producing widgets or springing new industries to life from theory but it still produces wealth the same way any other service does.

Your relationship is also flawed. Paying your mortgage doesn't create wealth, but the loan that the bank gave you beforehand enabled you to build that house in the first place and your mortgage payments are the incentive for the bank to have loaned you money to begin with. Without those kind of loans properties could only be developed by people with the raw cash reserves to purchase land outright from the Crown because the King had the good sense to run those damn jews out of town a long time ago.

Whoops, I didn't meant for it to be taken as a relationship.

I suppose my point is that I feel the importance of these people that do the money-shuffling is exaggerated as they're providing a simple service so that actual wealth can be generated. So why does this service seem to be valued more by the marketplace than the actual people generating the wealth? (Perhaps it's the same reason when Congress asks itself if it deserves a pay raise, the answer is seldom "No.")

They get paid a lot because they help people make a lot of money that would have otherwise required a large amount of time and research. It's also a risky, stressful venture.

Take solace in the fact that society values you far more than the marketplace could value an investment banker.

RR could melt his hands off. That's a risky, stressful venture also.