Global Cooling. The sky is falling.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... DUH, of course climate science isn't settled, nobody claimed that anyway (so why invoke a strawman's argument?). In fact, science will never be settled but it will evolve with new insights based on better data...

Oh, dear Lord!

We spent several last years listening to you et al peddling the “97% consensus” and “science is settled” only to hear today that “nobody claimed that anyway”!!!

You sound like a kid cought with his hand in the cookie jar, claiming in panic “I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it, I swear!”

[Alan Klein]

Today is Asteroid Day 2018.  Never mind global warming. Let's back burner that.  We've got more to worry about.
https://www.space.com/40239-near-earth-asteroid-detection-space-telescope.html

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Also of importance is several large petrochemical companies are spending a lot of money developing renewable fuels...

And that proves what? That they’re shrewd business people, as their current business model is based on a finite source, which will end one day and they better be prepared or risk bankruptcy in the future.

[digitaldog]

And that proves what? That they’re shrewd business people, as their current business model is based on a finite source, which will end one day and they better be prepared or risk bankruptcy in the future.

Yes, it proves forward thinking, something lacking by some posting here....

[Alan Klein]

Yes, it proves forward thinking, something lacking by some posting here....

Nothing wrong with renewable fuels.  Let's just let the free market handle it rather than government picking winners and losers in industry.  Regarding companies like Exxon developing alternative fuels, it also makes sense for them even if carbon fuels do not run out.  After all Exxon and similar companies already have distribution and sales markets set up and running.  Switching over to a different fuel or adding an extra pump along side their diesel and gasoline pumps, is a natural for them.

[digitaldog]

Nothing wrong with renewable fuels.  Let's just let the free market handle it rather than government picking winners and losers in industry.

Unlike say coal, wheat (framing), dairy etc:

Contrary to what proponents (AR: like you Alan?) of free markets advocate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ec...  and   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La... , business in America cannot succeed without government subsidy.  Expanding on  Joseph Pan's answer to What industries in the United States are subsidized by the government? ,

the majority of American industry is subsidized.  A short version of this long list would be:
1.  Agriculture,
2.  Telecom (both fixed and wireless),
3.  Banking,
4.  Auto,
5.  Trucking,
6.  Rail,
7.  Investment banking,
8.  Medicine,
9.  Television,
10. Mining,
11.  Steel,
12.  Airlines,
13.  Real estate,
14.  High tech (computing,  internet, software),
15.  Light and heavy industries,
16.  Manufacturing,
17.  Textile,
18.  Oil,
19.  Defense;   As pointed out here http://www.quora.com/What-industries-in-the-United-States-are-subsidized-by-the-government/answer/Rass-Bariaw/comment/7103485?srid=iEcU&share=1 , the US provides military aid to other nations as long as the recipients purchase their weapons and equipment from American manufacturers.  The American government pretends to be generous doling out tax payers' money to others while well connected companies like Halliburton profit from the generosity.  (And of course, the Defense Department spends Billions on research that is conducted by private entities like Universities, resulting in the internet, amongst many others).

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Oh, dear Lord!

We spent several last years listening to you et al peddling the “97% consensus” and “science is settled” only to hear today that “nobody claimed that anyway”!!!

Disappointing reaction, I must assume that my expectations were too high, mea culpa.  Apparently, 'you' have not been listening or, worse, not understanding simple concepts.

Good luck with catching up.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

 

Unlike say coal, wheat (framing), dairy etc:

Contrary to what proponents (AR: like you Alan?) of free markets advocate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ec...  and   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La... , business in America cannot succeed without government subsidy.  Expanding on  Joseph Pan's answer to What industries in the United States are subsidized by the government? ,

the majority of American industry is subsidized.  A short version of this long list would be:
1.  Agriculture,
2.  Telecom (both fixed and wireless),
3.  Banking,
4.  Auto,
5.  Trucking,
6.  Rail,
7.  Investment banking,
8.  Medicine,
9.  Television,
10. Mining,
11.  Steel,
12.  Airlines,
13.  Real estate,
14.  High tech (computing,  internet, software),
15.  Light and heavy industries,
16.  Manufacturing,
17.  Textile,
18.  Oil,
19.  Defense;   As pointed out here http://www.quora.com/What-industries-in-the-United-States-are-subsidized-by-the-government/answer/Rass-Bariaw/comment/7103485?srid=iEcU&share=1 , the US provides military aid to other nations as long as the recipients purchase their weapons and equipment from American manufacturers.  The American government pretends to be generous doling out tax payers' money to others while well connected companies like Halliburton profit from the generosity.  (And of course, the Defense Department spends Billions on research that is conducted by private entities like Universities, resulting in the internet, amongst many others).

Except for defense industries where there may be national security concerns, we should drop all subsidies and supports like the once oil depletion tax allowance.  When it was dropped it had no baleful effect on the oil companies. They got even richer.  Likewise, we should do the same with solar, food, etc.  Let free markets decide.  We would do better as a country.  When government interferes with natural effects of free markets, they distort those markets.  Capital is allocated often foolishly, and wasted.  Free markets pushed by supply and demand creates the most efficient way to invest scarce capital resources.  That will produce the most bang for the buck.

Requiring countries we give military aid to spend that money on our defense industries has nothing to do with free markets, but rather to help them defend themselves and to have them as a friend in the world.  We may have bases in their lands as forward post to defend our interests.   In any case would you prefer countries that we defend  buying weapons from other countries with our money rather than us?  On the other hand, if we are only giving money to certain countries as a way to help our national defense companies without any other reason to support that country, then we should stop funding those countries and our defense industries.  .

[digitaldog]

Except for defense industries where there may be national security concerns, we should drop all subsidies and supports like the once oil depletion tax allowance.

Tell that to Trump, who's stating tariffs of cars** etc, are due to national security concerns (rubbish). Seems you and I (and others) find his ideas to be idiotic!
** The Trump administration has made three reckless moves on trade in recent days. On May 23, it launched an investigation into whether imports of cars and S.U.V.s threaten the national security of the United States.
“Economic security is military security,” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has said. But this administration’s push to blur, or even erase, the line between our economic and national security interests is dangerous — both for the United States and for the world.

[digitaldog]

Requiring countries we give military aid to spend that money on our defense industries has nothing to do with free markets, but rather to help them defend themselves and to have them as a friend in the world.  We may have bases in their lands as forward post to defend our interests.

So you're happy with little finger(s) about this:
Republican Donald Trump criticized U.S. military support for several countries — Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany and South Korea — during a discussion on nuclear proliferation at a CNN town hall in late March, saying “we can’t afford it.” We’ll answer the question: What exactly does the U.S. provide in terms of military support to these countries?
Or those are not our friends?

[Alan Klein]

Tell that to Trump, who's stating tariffs of cars** etc, are due to national security concerns (rubbish). Seems you and I (and others) find his ideas to be idiotic!
** The Trump administration has made three reckless moves on trade in recent days. On May 23, it launched an investigation into whether imports of cars and S.U.V.s threaten the national security of the United States.
“Economic security is military security,” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has said. But this administration’s push to blur, or even erase, the line between our economic and national security interests is dangerous — both for the United States and for the world.

He's mentioning National Security because Congress allows the president to impose tariffs if there is a National Security concern. We know his main reason is to put pressure on other countries to lower their tariffs to meet ours and to stop China from stealing our intellectual property and trade secrets.  It does effect our national security because China is getting very militarily and economically stronger and could pose a danger to us.  This is not just conjecture.  Have you seen what China did in the South Pacific with the military buildup of those empty islands?  Stealing our trade secrets allows them to produce matching military assets, cheaply.  They also impose an economic challenge to us.

But Trump isn't imposing tariffs for the long term.  He's just using them to get concessions in negotiations with these countries for trade and to protect our secrets.  That's good for us.  Hopefully it will work.  It might not but he seems to have more testicular fortitude then most previous presidents.  He likes a fight and is willing to go to the mat. 

[Alan Klein]

So you're happy with little finger(s) about this:
Republican Donald Trump criticized U.S. military support for several countries — Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany and South Korea — during a discussion on nuclear proliferation at a CNN town hall in late March, saying “we can’t afford it.” We’ll answer the question: What exactly does the U.S. provide in terms of military support to these countries?
Or those are not our friends?

He wants them to pay more.  These are rich nations.  They are no longer the destitute countries after WWII trying to keep the Soviet Union at bay.  Germany and other NATO countries are not meeting their promises to spend 2% of their GDP on defense. They let America do the protecting and spending.  Who needs friends like that?  Meanwhile, we have a $21 trillion debt and you and I can't get better health care while they are getting great health care because they use their money on their social needs instead of tanks.  Why are we so stupid?  If they aren't going to spend on defense like they promised, we should reduce our military presence and keep the money saved at home for ourselves.  As an aside, do we really need to protect some of these countries at all?  Let them pay for a few more divisions of troops using their own countrymen.

[digitaldog]

He wants them to pay more.  These are rich nations.  They are no longer the destitute countries after WWII trying to keep the Soviet Union at bay.  Germany and other NATO countries are not meeting their promises to spend 2% of their GDP on defense. They let America do the protecting and spending.  Who needs friends like that?  Meanwhile, we have a $21 trillion debt and you and I can't get better health care while they are getting great health care because they use their money on their social needs instead of tanks.  Why are we so stupid?  If they aren't going to spend on defense like they promised, we should reduce our military presence and keep the money saved at home for ourselves.  As an aside, do we really need to protect some of these countries at all?  Let them pay for a few more divisions of troops using their own countrymen.

Statements that are made here that contradict themselves to support Trump appear hypocritical to me, perhaps others!

[Alan Goldhammer]

It does effect our national security because China is getting very militarily and economically stronger and could pose a danger to us. 

Just wait until China dump all the US debt that they currently hold.  That will be a big shock to the US.  China is also going to buy all the Iran oil that we won't.

[Alan Klein]

Just wait until China dump all the US debt that they currently hold.  That will be a big shock to the US.  China is also going to buy all the Iran oil that we won't.

So you agree that China is a threat to us.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Just wait until China dump all the US debt that they currently hold.  That will be a big shock to the US.

Exactly how are they going to “dump” it and why would that be “a big shock”?

[Alan Klein]

Statements that are made here that contradict themselves to support Trump appear hypocritical to me, perhaps others!

Nothing contradictory.  Trump didn't get rich by keeping his wallet open.  He didn't give away squat when it came to his own companies.  Now that he's president, he's trying to make things better for Americans by improving trade and making us more militarily secure.  Some of his plans may not work out, hopefully most will.  That's a good thing.  At least he's trying.  Past presidents just gave away the farm.  So would have Hillary.  We need someone who's tough. 

[Alan Klein]

Just wait until China dump all the US debt that they currently hold.  That will be a big shock to the US.  China is also going to buy all the Iran oil that we won't.

The article you linked to says the opposite.  It says there won't be a big shock.  First off buyiung our dollars stabilizes their Yuan.  It helps provide a market for their exports.  Also, and I don't recall if this is in the article, we send them more dollars to buy their stuff then they send to us to buy ours.  So they have a surplus of dollars.  That's the trade deficit.  In any case, you can't eat paper.  The dollar is paper.  So what are they going to do with all those dollars they have?  They could stick it under their mattresses.  But they'll make more money from interest if they invest in safe US Treasuries.  They're not stupid, that's for sure.

You ought to re-read the article. 

[digitaldog]

Nothing contradictory.  Trump didn't get rich by keeping his wallet open.  He didn't give away squat when it came to his own companies.  Now that he's president, he's trying to make things better for Americans by improving trade and making us more militarily secure.  Some of his plans may not work out, hopefully most will.  That's a good thing.  At least he's trying.  Past presidents just gave away the farm.  So would have Hillary.  We need someone who's tough.

Trump’s rich daddy didn’t loan him a million dollars? He’s how rich? No tax returns provided in how long? Sorry, difficulty in taking you too seriously again.

[Alan Goldhammer]

The article you linked to says the opposite.  It says there won't be a big shock.  First off buyiung our dollars stabilizes their Yuan.  It helps provide a market for their exports.  Also, and I don't recall if this is in the article, we send them more dollars to buy their stuff then they send to us to buy ours.  So they have a surplus of dollars.  That's the trade deficit.  In any case, you can't eat paper.  The dollar is paper.  So what are they going to do with all those dollars they have?  They could stick it under their mattresses.  But they'll make more money from interest if they invest in safe US Treasuries.  They're not stupid, that's for sure.

You ought to re-read the article.

I don't need to, I was just posting that one to give you an indication of how much debt is owned by the Chinese.  There are plenty of economists out there that have grave concerns about this concentration of debt.   China can manipulate the dollar so that it might fall and other countries could follow suit and sell their holdings.  If China reduces its buying at a time when the U.S. is increasing its supply of new Treasuries into the market, that could lead to a rout in the bond market.  Remember the current US tax "reform" is forcing the issuance of more debt.