Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cruxador]

Maybe we should all go back to tribalism. That worked well for tens of thousands of years.

TBH the ideal form of governance is a federation of gerontocratic polities governed by a monarch elected from the ruling families of the member states. So you get the social cohesion of tribalism with the wise governance that comes with age and the ability to cultivate several skilled ruler candidates then select the best of them and put him in a position where he isn't beholden to special interests.

[wierd]

Except the reality is that the power hungry just eliminate the competition through murder in such arrangements.

[smjjames]

Isn't the government already pretty hands off as far as the oil market goes? Sure, there's regulations and stuff, but if you want government controlled oil market, look at the OPEC countries.

[sluissa]

So now Trump wants to sell of more than half of the US' strategic oil reserves, to finance tax cuts and defense budget, and drilling in protected areas of Alaska and the North Pole is supposed to further help fill the national treasury.
At the same time, he says that the government should not be involved in the oil market.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/trump-heeft-nog-wel-een-idee-om-de-staatskas-te-spekken-amerikaanse-olie-verkopen~a4496756/

Question, what exactly are the 'strategic oil reserves'? Strategic in an economic way, as to control oil prices, or strategic as in needed to fuel the army in times of war?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_%28United_States%29?wprov=sfla1

[Neonivek]

I was sort of wondering why Trump would put the US in such a position. I mean extra military also means you need more oil to support said military, and in our current oil crisis having a strategic reserve is even more important.

So... I was like "Well, it would certainly benefit oil companies for this to occur. It would mean they would have the ability to hike their prices"

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The chickenhawk draft-dodger crunchwrap supreme doesn't know how to manage strategic warfare. What a fucking shock. I can't believe it.

Really.


Yes.

[smjjames]

Um, what oil crisis? The only 'oil crisis' that I see is a self inflicted one from OPEC when they tried to lower prices in order to force American shale oil out of business.

If you mean the one where we're supposed to have reached peak oil and are facing a collapse, it's a pretty drawn out collapse.

[Neonivek]

it's a pretty drawn out collapse.

It REALLY IS!

[misko27]

Um, what oil crisis? The only 'oil crisis' that I see is a self inflicted one from OPEC when they tried to lower prices in order to force American shale oil out of business.

First, there was an oil crisis in 1973, when OPEC imposed an Oil Embargo on the US for its support of Israel during the Yom Kippur war. Then, we had the 1979 oil shock in response to fall and rise of Iran. Note that the latter had a small (4%) actual affect on the oil supply, but the Panic meant that oil prices more than doubled. We also had the 2000s Energy Crisis, where the price of Oil was on a steady upward march until the 2008 recession.

I don't see the need for scare quotes.

So, what can actually be done about net neutrality?  Are there any protests planned?

Because protests solve everything.

I, for one, would rather have protests on Net Neutrality than another "Impeach the Cheat(o)" rally. Drawing attention to Donald Trump's policies takes the focus away from this "with-us-or-against-us" culture-war mentality, because, thus far, his actual policies (as opposed to the flashy things like the travel ban) are pretty unpopular.

I was sort of wondering why Trump would put the US in such a position. I mean extra military also means you need more oil to support said military, and in our current oil crisis having a strategic reserve is even more important.

Almost all of Donald Trump's policies are reminiscent of that whole "sue the Saudis" bill that passed a year ago or something. Obama very clearly stated "This bill is short-sighted and will expose us to retaliatory legal action", and Congress flipped him off and overturned his veto by a wide margin. Then, lo and behold, Mitch McConnell placed the blame on Obama for not reaching out to Congress enough.

Donald Trump is Congress, in this scenario. He hears "Sue the 9/11 hijackers Bill" and thinks "Oh wow, obviously we gotta do that, why wasn't that done before? Sad!" Then he marches on forward, no matter what consequences are or aren't waiting just over the horizon.

[sluissa]

While in the case of an actual war where supplies were cut off completely (not a likely case given domestic supplies which would outstrip the ability for the reserve to be used and would supllement it greatly), I'm sure the Strategic petroleum reserves would be rationed heavily with priority to military use, that's not it's primary purpose.

It's mostly as a buffer in case of a significant change in supply. A way to say "Okay, X country cut off our supply. That supply is something like 10% of our intake. We can cover that for a while with our reserves until we figure something else out."

We get plenty of oil from the middle east, but we also produce plenty on our own, and import plenty from VERY close allies. Canada being a large one. The day that we do something to piss off Canada enough to stop selling oil to us is a bad day indeed.

[Cruxador]

Except the reality is that the power hungry just eliminate the competition through murder in such arrangements.

That's why tribalism. People almost never murder their friends and family, and you tend to think twice about a murder that will start a blood feud. Of course, a little bit of that is okay. We need more checks on human population growth anyway. There is only a problem if the murder excessively removes necessary personelle. I don't have a perfect solution to that but it's to some degree a self-rectifying problem because the most competent can avoid murder through political acumen, which is necessary for diplomatic purposes anyway, and the least competent wouldn't rise to an important position in the first place when voting is done by the wise and educated, rather than the masses. A procedure for impeachment should allow alternate avenues of removal which don't necessitate murder for those of a more middling proficiency at the art of rule.

[Neonivek]

The day that we do something to piss off Canada enough to stop selling oil to us is a bad day indeed.

Yeah! Because I am not sure what you would have to do in order for that to happen. Did you nuke Toronto?

[nenjin]

So now Trump wants to sell of more than half of the US' strategic oil reserves, to finance tax cuts and defense budget

Lol. God that is so blatantly an inept and self-serving. Robbing Peter to pay Paul because Paul has been spending all his money on blow and hookers. I don't know what importance the Republican party places on the strategic reserves, but GeeDub made a big fucking deal out of them during his tenure, and I imagine Trump's revenue scheme will piss off a lot of Republican hawks.

Shouldn't really surprise anyone though. This is par for the course for how the Liquidator In Chief operated as a free citizen.

[PTTG??]

I was sort of wondering why Trump would put the US in such a position. I mean extra military also means you need more oil to support said military, and in our current oil crisis having a strategic reserve is even more important.

So... I was like "Well, it would certainly benefit oil companies for this to occur. It would mean they would have the ability to hike their prices"

If so, it's kind of a roundabout way of helping renewables.

[Starver]

Orange is the new Green?