Frederick Palowaski said:

---

Can't wait to hear Chucky try to spin this into a positive.

---

Her new salary package from MSNBC has already lost purchase power.

Malibu2 said:

---

I'm of course a liberal and think that human caused global warming is a thing and the sooner we can transition out of fossil fuels the better it will be for all of us. Just because **** hole countries can get away with polluting the environment doesn't mean we should do so here. There shouldn't be a race to the bottom of this just so we can be more competitive.

With that out of the way anyone who has done a cursory review of energy production and distribution understands that variable generated energy cannot meet the base loads required to run our economy. That's even setting aside the corrects facts that you were brought up about how green are the sources of green energy exactly, especially when thinking through things like child labor we're open pit mines. I want to transition off of fossil fuels but I also am not going to believe in unicorn farts as a solution. I would like to have nuclear energy production.

---

Problem is, the **** hole countries account for pretty much all the bucket, we are a small fraction of it if your are going to believe the global warming man made impact fallacy. We are already highly over-regulated and will never pull back on that so it is what it is. So racing for the bottom is not even an argument and our standards and requirements would never allow it.

We agree for sure on use what we can responsibly and race towards safe, nuclear production. We still have the sticky situation of land footprint and NIMBY, too many vocal idiots won't ever allow a nuclear facility where it should be built for convenience and efficient production. Reasonable arguments won't sway them.

Malibu2 said:

---

On a long enough time scale setting aside pollution arguments, it will eventually run out and we do use oil for things other than energy production. Thinking ahead to future human generations we should probably find a more abundant energy source that can fuel the economy, like say the atom, than fossil fuels. I'm also under no illusion that if the US does this by itself it will make much of a difference at all in total emissions.

---

That's fine and dandy, but your side has been saying we'll run out of fossil fuels for the past 50 years. All we've done is find more and innovate. You can't try to make policy looking 200 years in the future. Nobody can accurately account for all the variables. If fossil fuels become an issue, the market will innovate and people will discover alternatives like they have always done. Coercing action through government policy based on something that may or may not be a problem 100s of years from now is the epitome of stupid.

As tech advances and alternative methods become more cost efficient, society will naturally shift away from fossil fuels. Until the, the government and the Dems should shut the hell up. We should be investing in productive things, not bank-rolling garbage green energy and demonizing fossil fuels because it's in the party platform.

I agree that the market will always find alternatives. However, the market cannot realistically invest in moonshots. I think there is a role for the government in coordination with private foundations to invest in things like a Manhattan project for fusion or other radical paradigm shifting technologies that the private sector will not develop unless it's at the last mile or there is no other choice. We could also have our smart people working for this project instead of making better ways to distribute cat videos and share political outrage online.

I have a friend who owns a bakery. A bucket of eggs at the beginning of 2021 was $18. That same bucket is $90 today.

15% probably is on the table already, we don't have normalized inflation data because they keep changing the formula used to calculate it because they don't like the numbers they see.

Malibu2 said:

---

I agree that the market will always find alternatives. However, the market cannot realistically invest in Moon shots. I think there is a role for the government in coordination with private foundations to invest in things like a Manhattan project for fusion or other radical paradigm shifting technologies that the private sector will not develop unless it's at the last mile or there is no other choice. We could also have our smart people working for this project instead of making better ways to distribute cat videos and share political outrage online.

---

This is just not true. We have billionaires literally building rockets to the moon. If you want government incentives to innovate and produce new solutions, fine. But the real moonshot here is the idea that the renewables that we're wasting billions in subsidies on every year are really a solution to the purported problem you're talking about.

The idea that we need a Manhattan project to successfully innovate energy production supposes that we're in a state of emergency that needs a quick solution. That's just not true. And there's plenty of venture capital out there lining up to find the next big energy idea. The idea that people won't be willing to fund potentially revolutionary ideas in an era where capital is easier than ever to procure is just ridiculous. The best way the government can help, to be quite honest, is to just get the hell out of the way. Their only worry should be clean water and air.

To be fair I think that your billionaire rocket argument supports my argument rather than yours. Musk and Bezos were not starting from scratch. They are building on the trillions of dollars that the government and invested through NASA and now is the right time to pass the torch from the public sector to the private sector. I see no reason why fusion energy should not be the same thing.

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

Maybe all of that, but this is an ignorant take from somebody who has no background in oil and gas. I have read somewhere, and this could be completely wrong, that the kind of oil and gas that comes out of the ground in the US has different chemical properties and needs to be refined differently, and if this is slightly more expensive. If someone with more direct knowledge in the industry contradicts this I will be grateful for having been further educated.

---

You are right and to dumb it down (not implying you are dumb). There is a huge variability in depth, formations, extraction, recovery, etc. There are light crudes and there are heavy sour crudes. Refineries were built to run mostly on a certain blends and can tweak as needed. Domestically, we don't have the volume of sour crude that is required without overhauling some refining processes for most refineries.

Another wrinkle, the Chevron Pascagoula refinery is one of the newer major refineries on the gulf coast last I checked. It was built back in the 60s and still isn't completely land locked but is getting there. You just can't magically create space and infrastructure to modify your process. Then you are dealing with your social justice/environmental racism issues, massive permitting issues, bad press, etc., so new sites are not going to happen.

You do realize getting oil out of the ground in Venezuela and Russia for examples, would be much easier because of regulatory and permitting hoops compared to US? Ivan the EPA inspector is not going to care about the massive pollution potential because he doesn't exist or is paid off. It's why the green movement is OK with electric cars because none of them live near an open pit mine with tailings and child labor that are the basis for their precious batteries. Those things magically show up already installed in the car without seeing how the sausage is made.

---

I was under the impression refineries built previously mostly used sour (heavy crude) and we exported the lighter crude. Not sure how many new refineries have been built in the last few decades.
Why do we import Russian (and other foreign) oil when we have a lot of it in the U.S.?

Quote:

---

That's because they take longer to process and need specialized refining equipment. This cheap, lower-quality crude comes from Canada, Venezuela and Russia, among other spots. Back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, it was the product U.S. refiners were buying.
. . . . .
"A lot of refineries, especially in the Gulf Coast, made a very expensive bet to invest in this equipment that would allow them to save money on input costs by processing, you know, lower-quality crude," said Richard Sweeney, an assistant professor of economics at Boston College.

Then came the fracking boom. Fracking produces light, sweet crude that can't be refined with that equipment.
. . . .
To be fair, the U.S. refining system is processing more light sweet domestic crude than it used to, but nowhere near the point where the country can stop importing heavier, sour oil from abroad.

The upshot: Since 2020, the U.S. has been a net exporter of oil, sending a lot of its light sweet crude to Europe and Asia where refineries are equipped to deal with the kind of oil coming out of West Texas and North Dakota

---

We all stand on the shoulders of giants.

Malibu2 said:

---

To be fair I think that your billionaire rocket argument supports my argument rather than yours. Musk and Bezos were not starting from scratch. They are building on the trillions of dollars that the government and invested through NASA and now is the right time to pass the torch from the public sector to the private sector. I see no reason why fusion energy should not be the same thing.

---

A space program built out of military dominance, right?
The moonshot was not without its distractors and people wondering why we are spending tax dollars funds to employee rich white college boys to do a bunch math. Plus, Kennedy had to pressure unions to keep wages their down to continue to lower overall costs.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/opinion/apollo-11-nasa-woodstock.html

Trade-offs and incentives. The government gets by without having to justify its decisions (free lunch problem) the way markets do.

tysker said:

---

We all stand on the shoulders of giants.

---

I AM a giant.....







.... MexiHonky.

Well we don't have the counterfactual as to what would've happened without the space race. But the main reason that was relegated to the government is because there was no private market for it. There is a basically inelastic demand for cheap energy.

But this is besides the point. Conservatives are not against energy innovation. The problem we have with your side is the means by which you wield the government to impose your nonsense climate views on the energy sector. We waste billions on renewables instead of investing in cleaner fossil fuel production and innovation. Y'all invest in things that are proven not to work in the hopes that one day they will. We want to invest in the things that do work and provide for innovation as it is necessary. One approach is fiscally responsible. The other is crazy.

We start with inflation and get derailed into an argument about space development??

HowdyTAMU said:

---

We start with inflation and get derailed into an argument about space development??

---

Because the price of space travel is too damn high thanks to this inflation.

It's page 4, do you even TexAgs bro?

nortex97 said:

---

Gas: +48.0%
Used Cars: +35.3%
Gas Utilities: +21.6%
Meats/Fish/Eggs: +13.7%
New Cars: +12.5%
Electricity: +11.1%
Food at home: +10%
Overall CPI: +8.5% pic.twitter.com/oT8RxoYqfC

— God Assigned Your Gender (@oldarmy1) April 12, 2022

Thank a Democrat/moderate/independent voter you know today!

---

I'll pass. Don't feel like going to jail.

HowdyTAMU said:

---

We start with inflation and get derailed into an argument about space development??

---

Because certain people believe government work projects are the solution to all of our economic ills and use the Hoover Dam, the moon landing, and the interstate highway system as their proof of concept.

In fairness, that is a proof of concept. In the private sector I borrow money all the time to make assets more productive and use the gains and productivity to pay off the debt. The government can work the same way. Things like infrastructure and energy research are not throwing money into her meaningless pit. Rent relief and extended unemployment insurance on the other hand, well…

pic.twitter.com/3fkNuJ5ypY

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) April 12, 2022

Depends on why and how we're investing. The left has bad answers to both of those.

'We are so fortunate that the adults are in charge.' - Concerned Moderate

And once again: There is no man made global warming/climate change.

Malibu2 said:

---

In fairness, that is a proof of concept. In the private sector I borrow money all the time to make assets more productive and use the gains and productivity to pay off the debt. The government can work the same way. Things like infrastructure and energy research are not throwing money into her meaningless pit. Rent relief and extended unemployment insurance on the other hand, well…

---

If you believe that non-sustainable projects are 'proof' then sure. Flaw highlighted in bold. The market is a better allocator of capital than the government because ti knows better the needs and demands of the people. You cannot spend yourself rich and neither can the government.

Malibu2 said:

---

Do you wanna know how I know you didn't read my post?

---

Oh, I read it.

I want to get past the feelings part, in child labor and the smoking tractor working in the mines, and get to the crux of the issue. ITS NOT POSSIBLE to generate enough materials to make all of the batteries team green wants.

Why I am I being asked to argue for a position my post specifically argues against?

tysker said:

---

HowdyTAMU said:

---

We start with inflation and get derailed into an argument about space development??

---

Because certain people believe government work projects are the solution to all of our economic ills and use the Hoover Dam, the moon landing, and the interstate highway system as their proof of concept.

---

Well, why not add WW3? I'm sure we will need stuff.

30 trillion in debt and growing fast. Americans are going to learn what bad times really are.

Malibu2 said:

---

Why I am I being asked to argue for a position my post specifically argues against?

---

If it makes you feel better I've enjoyed the back and forth.

tysker said:

---

HowdyTAMU said:

---

We start with inflation and get derailed into an argument about space development??

---

Because certain people believe government work projects are the solution to all of our economic ills and use the Hoover Dam, the moon landing, and the interstate highway system as their proof of concept.

---

"the wall" is also a jobs program aka liberalism.

Rockdoc said:

---

And once again: There is no man made global warming/climate change.

---

Boo this man. Boo him.

Username checks out as an over inflated debatable issue so as not to let a crisis go to waste in efforts to print trillions more currency and devalue it even further so we can fully destroy this experiment and attempt to build back better.

Wish I had a crystal ball on Real Estate.

Peter Doocy: The Biden White House is in CRISIS after latest inflation numbers hit the Biden Titanic like an ICEBERG pic.twitter.com/nYC3M21jwe

— Benny (@bennyjohnson) April 12, 2022

will25u said:

---

Sky-rocketing inflation is just the appetizer for the major recession that’s coming. To reduce the money supply, the Fed will have to jack up interest rates, which will strangle an economy that is already on life support and cause asset prices to crash. Congrats, Lockdowners.

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) April 12, 2022

---

And there's the talking point...

OR... We could just repeal the Trump tax cuts that caused all this mess.

— Patrick (@PML2323) April 12, 2022